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
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 11-24-2014, 09:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Posts: 5,226
standing on the sidelines is on a distinguished road
Default

some of the posts do get redirected to the proper category. That is a normal function of a mod, to make sure things are where they are suppose to be.

As for the editing, yes you can edit your posts but you accused the mod of editing your posts. That is why she made the comment about you editing your posts.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 11-24-2014, 10:02 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

There was nothing in those posts that required a redirection to this thread. Nothing at all. She did edit my posts. Then redirected them for no reason. I'm not okay with that. And neither should the mods or the administrator be okay with this behavior.

If you would like to rebut this post please start a thread about "Mods editing, deleting and redirecting posts for no reason". This thread has useful information. McDreamy simply wants to fog it up with this.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 11-24-2014 at 10:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 11-24-2014, 10:18 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Posts: 5,226
standing on the sidelines is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
There was nothing in those posts that required a redirection to this thread. Nothing at all. She did edit my posts. Then redirected them for no reason. I'm not okay with that. And neither should the mods or the administrator be okay with this behavior.

If you would like to rebut this post please start a thread about "Mods editing, deleting and redirecting posts for no reason". This thread has useful information. McDreamy simply wants to fog it up with this.
All I did was comment on the post you made. Not my fault if you posted it on this thread. If you would of put it in a new thread then I would of rebutted it there, but you didn't. I have never had a issue with mods doing their jobs so why would I start a thread like that??
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 11-24-2014, 10:24 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

So you do want to continue this here. Interesting. Literally, just here to cause turbulence.
Hijacking of my thread here seems to be okay though.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 11-24-2014, 10:29 PM
blinkandimgone's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lucknow
Posts: 5,225
blinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura aboutblinkandimgone has a spectacular aura about
Default

I read through and it seems you have hijacked your own thread with this new debate.

:-/
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 11-24-2014, 10:32 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Good for you guys. Give yourselves high fives. Another LF32 thread demolished. YeeHaa.

The important thing to note posters is that my intensions of this thread can be seen at the beginning of the thread. You can mock me, edit/delete/redirect my posts all you want. As long as I'm able to provide some good case law and a deeper comprehension of maximum contact then I've done my job here.

:/

Last edited by LovingFather32; 11-24-2014 at 10:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 11-24-2014, 10:36 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Posts: 5,226
standing on the sidelines is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Good for you guys. Give yourselves high fives. Another LF32 thread demolished. YeeHaa.
oh come on stop being so juvenile. You posted about the mods on this thread, people comment on your posts. There was no motives to "demolish" your thread. You did that yourself. You seem to feel that you have no accountability. You are the one who took the thread in another direction first.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 11-24-2014, 10:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,339
Beachnana is on a distinguished road
Default

So I inderstand the " Maximum Contact". Concept. But can it be used if one parent only wants to arrange to see their child (3 yrs old) 4 times per year and then thinks its okay to have long visits. 2 weeks etc.?
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 11-24-2014, 10:49 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 Beachnana View Post
So I inderstand the " Maximum Contact". Concept. But can it be used if one parent only wants to arrange to see their child (3 yrs old) 4 times per year and then thinks its okay to have long visits. 2 weeks etc.?
SOTS..name calling. Not cool. Please stop.

Thank you Beach. God I could hug you. Back on a related topic. Great question at that. I would think that perhaps that's not the best idea. The child would have to get use to that parent again in short bursts (especially at 3). That would be a case where one parent doesn't desire maximum contact so the rule wouldn't apply.

I like this definition:

The “maximum contact principle” essentially advocates that the child should have as much contact as possible with each parent if it benefits the child. Therefore, Judges will investigate into whether the either parent has fully complied with the principle or has placed various bulwarks that hinder the relationship of the child with the other parent.

The principle is codified in section 16(10) of the Divorce Act, and although there is no comparable section in the Children’s Law Reform Act, courts also apply this principle under the CLRA.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 11-24-2014, 10:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 721
Straittohell is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachnana View Post
So I inderstand the " Maximum Contact". Concept. But can it be used if one parent only wants to arrange to see their child (3 yrs old) 4 times per year and then thinks its okay to have long visits. 2 weeks etc.?
I think that the idea of maximum contact is that the wishes of competent parents who want to be parents, is honoured.

Every time I see someone arguing against maximum contact, they drudge up examples of substandard fathers that are either abusive, or fail to exercise their time.

If a dad (or mom) wants to be a parent, and is competent, and have 50%, why, for the love of all that is holy and good, should they be denied that?
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
What next....? jlalex Divorce & Family Law 9 12-05-2006 11:22 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:41 AM.