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
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 04:17 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
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 stripes View Post
... 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.
Generally in those situations though the parents who "don't want to cope" will agree (without the need for the court to intervene) and an agreement can be struck. What the focus (I think) of this thread is when parents don't "agree".

Where one parent specifically disagrees and consent can not be reached is what is being discussed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stripes View Post
Holding the line at 35% (or 20% or whatever) could be a reasonable compromise, depending on the situation.
Can you provide some examples?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stripes View Post
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.
I am of the personal opinion that when conflict exists in a unbalanced split the best thing for the kids (if one or both parents are requesting 50-50 residency) is 50-50 residency in the model of parallel parenting.

Again I state: This is in a situation where an Application is before the court where one parent is requesting 50-50 residency and the other is requesting every-other-weekend. In this situation (different from the one you mention) the parents do not agree. Children are caught in the middle of this disagreement and the courts are involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stripes View Post
(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).
Agreed. 40% is a silly schedule as well and I believe it has a negative impact on children. Accounting for the 10% difference is really silly to do.
Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 04:21 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 404
Ange71727 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trinton View Post
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.


The 35% comes from what HE wanted at the time of divorce. He told me that he thought the kids were best off primarily in my care. He also liked the idea of having the kids only on his "days off" from his shift work schedule. I presented the proposal to him using "off" days as his custody days. He agreed. Now here we are 8 years later. Nothing has changed - he is still in the same house he bought 5 or 6 years ago and still has the exact same shift work schedule.
His CS deal has expired though....
Many other posters have told you triton, including ones who don't "understand" or like me much, that ROFR is not a good idea for conflicted parents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 04:23 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I hear what you guys are saying.

I also think that we need to give him the benefit of the doubt that he may actually want to be equally involved as his children's life.

Angie is saying he's all about money, but there are father's out there who actually want an equal relationship. There's a good chance he's one of them.

Angie's looking for ways to stop it in a very scattered fashion. Is he harming the kids like she says (even though she's allowed him to have 35% access for 8 years)?

It could be possible that the guy just actually got his life straightened out, home renovated, etc and would like just a few increase in percentage in access.

Quote:
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.
I dealt with this also. My ex (and many other's ex's) tried to self destruct any form of communication to take away any chance of communication so that 50/50 isn't possible nor joint custody. Then went in to court saying "Can't communicate...Sole custody to me...EOW for him".. I say --> screw that! Doesn't work that way.

Fortunately the courts are on to it and have things like:
Quote:
www.ourfamilywizard.com for communication and "Parallel Parenting" plans. Family members/friends/daycares, etc for exchanges. You really don't even have to deal with your ex now-a-days.
There's a bunch of caselaw on this topic as well (one parent saying "we can't communicate", causing problems, etc for sole custody and access restrictions). Judges are catching on.

The question is .. what is the root of the tension? What if mom said "You know what? You've been there almost 50% for 8 years and the kids are thriving, happy and healthy, lets start the new year off on a positive note and give 50/50 a shot". Let's focus on the kids and be business partners. Truce?" Has Angie tried this? Dad would surely agree, (it's only an extra day or 2...geeze).

But no, for one reason or another there has to be a friggen war over a day or 2 extra/year. Boggles my mind.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 01-10-2017 at 04:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 04:31 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 404
Ange71727 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
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.


I will let you know. These are my sentiments even though I know we don't agree on all of this. I feel that there won't be much of a parenting plan - just hoping to wipe the arrears away. Which I will do in exchange for status quo as the kids are thriving in this arrangement. LF32, it sounds like you had an epic fight to get what you wanted. I believe that this was right from the get-go which I do commend you for. The fact that it has been 8 years in my arrangement and that now there is CS increase and thousands in arrears should not be lost on you. I have been told by my ex specifically that he will make the increase (as of Jan 1st) but that his lawyer has advised him not to pay the arrears. I wonder why?...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 04:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,001
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

On a side note Angie, cs doesnt expire unless the kids have reached the age of majority or finished post secondary. You have a really bad agreement if it was written to say expires. Your lawyer needs to remind your ex's lawyer of the FCSG and his obligation to update. It could be that his income hasnt changed and theres no issue or it could be that it has and he has hidden behind that clause. Right now, until he pulls the trigger so to speak, you need to wait to see what hes offering and you should demand a parenting plan for an increase in time with existing activities the kids are involved in. Until he presents that, there should be no discussion. And if he continues to slander you to the kids you send him an email letting him know this DISCUSSION is between the two of you NOT the children.
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 05:06 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,144
SadAndTired is on a distinguished road
Default

Perhaps LF, if you wanted to have a well rounded, fair conversation, you would discuss general concepts instead of making specific accusations at posters whom you just don't like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
It just irks me that she won't give the guy a chance
Try to leave your personal feelings out of it.
Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 05:07 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 404
Ange71727 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
On a side note Angie, cs doesnt expire unless the kids have reached the age of majority or finished post secondary. You have a really bad agreement if it was written to say expires. Your lawyer needs to remind your ex's lawyer of the FCSG and his obligation to update. It could be that his income hasnt changed and theres no issue or it could be that it has and he has hidden behind that clause. Right now, until he pulls the trigger so to speak, you need to wait to see what hes offering and you should demand a parenting plan for an increase in time with existing activities the kids are involved in. Until he presents that, there should be no discussion. And if he continues to slander you to the kids you send him an email letting him know this DISCUSSION is between the two of you NOT the children.


Sorry, to be clear, he still has to pay CS. It's just that his negotiated deal from the separation agreement has expired. He has to pay in accordance with salary now, which has increased quite a bit.
I am trying not to respond to his emails at all unless pertinent to the kids. I just document the things he says and does, for what it will be worth. You're right that it's a waiting game now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 06:06 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,838
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
On a side note Angie, cs doesnt expire unless the kids have reached the age of majority or finished post secondary. You have a really bad agreement if it was written to say expires. Your lawyer needs to remind your ex's lawyer of the FCSG and his obligation to update. It could be that his income hasnt changed and theres no issue or it could be that it has and he has hidden behind that clause. Right now, until he pulls the trigger so to speak, you need to wait to see what hes offering and you should demand a parenting plan for an increase in time with existing activities the kids are involved in. Until he presents that, there should be no discussion. And if he continues to slander you to the kids you send him an email letting him know this DISCUSSION is between the two of you NOT the children.
There you go. Until Dad comes up with his own parenting plan (including financial responsibility), there's no reason to agree to deviate from the eight-year status quo just because he wants to. Let him do the legwork.
Reply With Quote
  #69 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 08:51 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I generally don't like to mix finances with access. But I suppose it's happening anyway.

Ange... lets set up a hypothetical scenario .. just for fun.

What if he comes with a stellar parenting plan (doubt his lawyer will let him proceed without one)....he does the legwork and shows he's completely serious about being an involved, equal parent? (Again...just a small percentage until it's 50/50).

Get ready... I doubt he'll jump into this unprepared.

All finances, etc set aside .... are you ready to put any subjective hard feelings and differences aside and accept it?

Last edited by LovingFather32; 01-10-2017 at 08:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #70 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2017, 09:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 404
Ange71727 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Not just unreasonable. Simply doesn't make sense. Judge will see this inconsistency right away.


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.


Ummm nope. Sorry - I know you'd love to "get me" on this one but he would be paying no matter what. I'm starting threads about


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 08:30 PM.