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
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 01:33 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Just to add to what Tayken mentioned, it's too bad dad has to think outside the box and resort to any of that stuff just to see his children a little bit more.

His ability to parent is in tact as per 24(4) of the CLRA.

Angie, you say yourself:

Quote:
He isn't abusing them. He isn't hurting them per se. I do think he loves them. I just don't want to lose the arrangement I have.
You also point out that:

Quote:
I HAVE considered a reduction in custody. I just think that less time with them would be detrimental to my kids. I would have to explain why daddy is getting less time now because they would need justification at their ages.
1. So the kids would HATE to lose time with him? That's "very" telling. Time with their dad is "Detrimental" to them actually (your words). So one could only assume that a bit more time would be great!

2. But you also claim he's harming them (by your definition) .. not the CLRA's.
So why allow access at all if there's harm?

(Ohhhh..I want to be a lawyer in my next life. 2 great trial bits during questioning ^^^)

Listen, there's no abuse, a stable home with a g/f who treats your kids good. A dad who's trying anything to get his kids on an equal basis. (Which in the end is only a few more days/year). I still don't get the big fight, but whatever.

You're case is a great source for this thread.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 01-10-2017 at 01:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 01:55 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,681
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Let me tell you something, I was being denied access for quite some time and the mom would only agree to supervised access since I had been out of my child's life for some time. When the supervised access finally began (she was screwing around with that process and the enforcement of that order for an additional 9 months) the child was very happy to see me. The child would tell me that she loved me and that she wanted to see me every day.

You know what the judge said? This is a situation now that child is with mom and thinks dad is bad. Then child see's dad and thinks "daddy is not bad. daddy is good. I love dad."

The mom continued to make unfounded allegations and expressed fears of me breaking my child's arms when I asked for unsupervised access and you know what the judge told her after 6 months of positive supervised access visits?

That is not going to happen. You have chosen this man as the father of your child, he has done everything you have asked of him, he is going to be getting access. You have anxieties... this matter is going to trial.

Just thought I through that out there. If you continue to make allegations you can't proof and express fears, but agree to him having 35% access, They will think you have a personality disorder which will classify you as an unfit parent.

PS. You having all these crazy thoughts about him hurting your child's emotional well being when you have agreed to him to have 35% access is unreasonable. If you have those fears then he shouldn't have anything more than supervised access. And keep in mind supervised access is only temporary, generally the access parent will go through counselling and then will be given regular access. We as a modern society believe in re habitation. People go to jail and come out go to school, become educated, and really good citizens. People do drugs, become addicted, go-to rehab, come out and start volunteering. They get jobs and have families.

You haven't answered my question. Why do you agree to him having 35% but not 50%. How did you come up with that precise number of 35% ? I ask because it is only 5% from 40% access.

I have a new question. Are you afraid that the ROFR will give him that extra 5% that you are trying to withold?

I trust that you will answer my questions. I trust that you have nothing to hide from us.
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 02:30 PM
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
You having all these crazy thoughts about him hurting your child's emotional well being when you have agreed to him to have 35% access is unreasonable.
Not just unreasonable. Simply doesn't make sense. Judge will see this inconsistency right away.

Quote:
You haven't answered my question. Why do you agree to him having 35% but not 50%. How did you come up with that precise number of 35% ? I ask because it is only 5% from 40% access.
Exactly. She also states that she is a well-educated individual. So I wonder if the 40% threshold was met if that meant she would have to pay him CS. That's why shes starting threads about hours being calculated, etc. Food for thought.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 01-10-2017 at 02:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 02:46 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,569
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
Exactly. She also states that she is a well-educated individual. So I wonder if the 40% threshold was met if that meant she would have to pay him CS. That's why shes starting threads about hours being calculated, etc. Food for thought.
Generally off-set child support is not worth fighting over. Generally the parents make similar incomes and the differences are <1000 a month.

Remember 40% doesn't guarantee that offset is automagically calculated. There are a number of parents who pay full table on 50-50 residential schedules.
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 02:54 PM
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 Tayken View Post
Generally off-set child support is not worth fighting over. Generally the parents make similar incomes and the differences are <1000 a month.

Remember 40% doesn't guarantee that offset is automagically calculated. There are a number of parents who pay full table on 50-50 residential schedules.
Yea I agree. I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning for this poster to not allow for an equal relationship. Dad loves his kids ; no history or pattern of abuse ; already at 35% access (so no huge routine changes for an extra day or 2/year) ; Kids would hate to lose time with him (stated by Angie) .. so adding time should have a positive effect ... just so many weird things. Now she states that there's harm being done, but was okay for 8 years at 35%.

For me it is the exact truism you wrote about in your abuse thread. She has a disgusting image of her ex and minimizes any good qualities he may have, while over amplifying the negatives and relationship stuff. Based on her posts, a 50/50 regime should be instituted on a graduated schedule. There's no reason for that not to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 02:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,838
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

Here's something, just food for thought:

Custody is not black and white: either Parent is a terrible parent and should get zero access, or Parent is a good parent and should get 50%. Lots of parents fall somewhere in between - they can't or don't want to cope with all the demands of equal parenting, but they don't totally suck either. Holding the line at 35% (or 20% or whatever) could be a reasonable compromise, depending on the situation. It's certainly possible for someone to be a good-enough parent at less-than-50%, but a not-so-good-enough parent when it comes to taking equal responsibility. I don't know if this is the case with the OP, but it might be.

(Also, not everything is about the magic 40% threshold. Unless there's a major income discrepancy between Mom and Dad, switching to offset might not have much impact on either household's finances).
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 03:01 PM
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 stripes View Post
Here's something, just food for thought:

Custody is not black and white: either Parent is a terrible parent and should get zero access, or Parent is a good parent and should get 50%. Lots of parents fall somewhere in between - they can't or don't want to cope with all the demands of equal parenting, but they don't totally suck either. Holding the line at 35% (or 20% or whatever) could be a reasonable compromise, depending on the situation. It's certainly possible for someone to be a good-enough parent at less-than-50%, but a not-so-good-enough parent when it comes to taking equal responsibility. I don't know if this is the case with the OP, but it might be.

(Also, not everything is about the magic 40% threshold. Unless there's a major income discrepancy between Mom and Dad, switching to offset might not have much impact on either household's finances).
Very true Stripes. It's always difficult without hearing both sides and weighing all the facts and evidence.

I believe that this particular parent should be given the opportunity to prove himself as a 50/50 parent after being 35% for 8 years. He may be worse at 50% .. or he may be better. The kids lives may also improve. But who knows unless it's actually tried. Why deny the opportunity?

The truth is that Angie will probably win with status quo. I'm smart enough to realize that. It just irks me that she won't give the guy a chance to spend a bit more time with his kids when he seems to be a good candidate to do so (despite the normal separation relationship he said/she said stuff that most of us go through).

She may be pleasantly surprised .. just as my ex and I are with a 50/50 regime.
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 03:03 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,012
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Yea I agree. I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning for this poster to not allow for an equal relationship. Dad loves his kids ; no history or pattern of abuse ; already at 35% access (so no huge routine changes for an extra day or 2/year) ; Kids would hate to lose time with him (stated by Angie) .. so adding time should have a positive effect ... just so many weird things. Now she states that there's harm being done, but was okay for 8 years at 35%.

For me it is the exact truism you wrote about in your abuse thread. She has a disgusting image of her ex and minimizes any good qualities he may have, while over amplifying the negatives and relationship stuff. Based on her posts, a 50/50 regime should be instituted on a graduated schedule. There's no reason for that not to happen.


I think a lot of what Angie said in the other thread got confused and mixed up. Her ex wants to increase custody to reduce his cs payments. I have a feeling he is following misguided ideas that his arrears get wiped out and he doesnt have to update. Or he threatens to go to court for increased time and hopes she agrees to wipe out arrears. Until he actually files paperwork its not really known.

She has stated though that the schedule works for her and also mentioned a whole bunch of other irrelevant factors.

Setting aside both of those thoughts (dads malicious intentions and moms desire to stick with what works) it looks like 50/50 could work if both parties were reasonable and able to provide what is necessary for the kids' well being.

Truly we will never know unless dad puts forward what he wants and what his parenting plan is and if mom agrees to what works for the kids.

LF32, you forget you had a very child focused parenting plan, had enrolled your kid in activities and was demonstrating your ability to provide much more structure and activities than your ex. Your case was very different in that you were prepared with options and were organized. I think in many 50/50 cases this is the norm--two parents who work together on their kids' best interests.

For parents who are trying to get back at the other parent, prove the other parent isnt fit, reduce income, and in some way hurt or harm the other parent, 50/50 is useless because it just leads to dispute.

Again, we go back to the test of reasonability. Reasonable parents stay out of court. And reasonability applies to both parties. The judge will ask "and what are you doing in return" when a parent pulls the he/she wont do X.
Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 03:18 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,350
Beachnana is on a distinguished road
Default

It would be very difficult to have 50/50 if parents cannot get along or have very different ideas of raising a child. I said very difficult but not impossible as I am sure lots do it. But simple,things like haircuts, piecerce ears or not, dating, bed times, homework.

If parents do not get along the. Does,the child not suffer from living in the middle of their conflict and having too very different homelifes to contend with?

Note: I am not saying it not a good idea for 50/50 I was wondering if any parents out there with high conflict and different parenting styles have some insight?
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 03:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,838
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

I wouldn't say my parenting setup is "high conflict" (any more), but I would say I've learned to pick my battles in order to reduce tensions with ex over 50/50. He does things with Kid that I don't approve of (e.g. we had different ideas about what age is appropriate for a bikini bathing suit, or whether young children should get to watch R-rated movies and TV shows), and I'm sure I've done things he didn't approve of but didn't raise as a big issue. I've saved "I will not allow ...." for really major things.

The beauty of 50/50 is that you have your child for half the time - so while they're being exposed to things you don't like at the other parent's home, they also have your home as a model for the other 50%. Eventually, kids figure out the difference between the two homes. If necessary, you can explain the difference between the two households in a way that doesn't blame the other parent (e.g. "I don't want you watching Dexter because I think that exposure to a lot of violence isn't good for kids' brains. Other people like your dad may have a different opinion. At my place we're going to follow my opinion. When you're an adult, you can have your own opinion".
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 06:34 AM.