Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Military Dad Question

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Military Dad Question

    This is my first post so bear with me.
    I am a serving mbr of the CF (22+yrs) and have recently (2010) gotten divorced. My daughter is 14 and lives with her mom in Kingston, On. this year I was posted to Borden, On (about 3 1/2hrs from Kingston).
    In my separation agreement, which we did ourselves but have not submitted to the courts, it stipulates that she has Full Custody (which because of the childs age fighting for joint didn't seem worth it) and I have visitation every other weekend and we split holidays.
    Now that I have been posted my the military and living in Borden I am wondering if there is a "law" that can force my Ex to meet me half ways for my visit days or is it up to me to drive the distance?
    I have also brought up that I would pay for my daughter to take the train to the halfway point as she is 14 and legally allowed but my Ex is blocking that saying she isn't comfortable with that. My daughter is all for the idea...this seems like my ex is trying to block my access...is there anything I can do?

    Thanks

  • #2
    Generally, the person who moves is the person who absorbs the costs of transporting the child for their parenting time.

    The other parent should not be adversely affected by the other parents decisions.

    Now that said, you being in the military may change things slightly, but not much. You would also have to look at the costs/benefit of a court action. If it costs you $75 per weekend to transport the kid, but it would cost you $5000 to fight her in court to get a judge to order she meet you 1/2 way (with no guarantee you would be successful) the numbers simply don't add up to court making sense.

    See what you can do to get her to meet somewhere like Port Colbourne/Port Hope etc (Bowmanville if you are really lucky). If necessary, offer to pay her something for her troubles, like $20 per weekend or something. Because there is no "law" that says each parent must contribute to transporting the child.

    Comment


    • #3
      If you're willing to pay for the train, this obviously isn't about the money. It seems to me it's about the driving distance and time. It's one thing to drive for 3 1/2 hours to pick up your kid. If you are responsible for all the driving, you are driving twice that amount of time, half of it all alone.

      CN is perfectly comfortable with a 14 year old travelling alone, as long as they know someone is picking the child up. There is no reason the ex should feel uncomfortable with it. It really isn't much different than taking the bus across town, except that it is much more comfortable and the porter will take care of her.

      Your ex doesn't have to transport the child but she does have responsibility to co-operate with your access needs. Regarding the train, your position is reasonable, hers is not. Unfortunately you would have to go to court to enforce this. Unfortunately there is no legislation you can point to and say, "Look, you're breaking the law, smarten up."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by speedball0622 View Post
        This is my first post so bear with me.
        I am a serving mbr of the CF (22+yrs) and have recently (2010) gotten divorced. My daughter is 14 and lives with her mom in Kingston, On. this year I was posted to Borden, On (about 3 1/2hrs from Kingston).
        In my separation agreement, which we did ourselves but have not submitted to the courts, it stipulates that she has Full Custody (which because of the childs age fighting for joint didn't seem worth it) and I have visitation every other weekend and we split holidays.
        Not sure what you mean when you say fighting for joint custody wasn't worth it. Think about it, you don't want joint decision making in regards to your daughter? You don't want equal input on her education, religious upbringing and other important matters? Of course you do. You can do that from Borden.
        Also your posting may be temporary plus you might retire within a few years and move back, so keep your commitment open.
        Last edited by baldclub; 10-25-2012, 11:35 AM. Reason: Difficulty posting by phone

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by baldclub View Post
          Not sure what you mean when you say fighting for joint custody wasn't worth it. Think about it, you don't want joint decision making in regards to your daughter? You don't want equal input on her education, religious upbringing and other important matters? Of course you do. You can do that from Borden.
          Also your posting may be temporary plus you might retire within a few years and move back, so keep your commitment open.
          Simple fact: Child is 14.

          Under the Medical Act, a child of 14 can easily request that their parents not have access to their medical records, contact their doctors, etc... They can get out having to attend school, choose what school they will attend and even sue their parents for child support.

          "Custody" is really of a concern for minor children who are 14 years or less. I would say even 12 and less.

          If someone wants the "label" of being a "sole custodial" parent for a child of 14... Let them. Don't waste the money fighting over it I say. The child of 14 can pretty much shut down both parents from making decisions at this age regarding them.

          Try and "control" a 14 year old with "custody" and see what happens as a result.

          Comment


          • #6
            Definitely a point worth considering Tayken. However, won't that help him if he comes back and wants to achieve a 50/50 shared custody later?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by baldclub View Post
              Definitely a point worth considering Tayken. However, won't that help him if he comes back and wants to achieve a 50/50 shared custody later?
              You have the concepts of "access" and "custody" mixed up.

              Custody - decision making
              Access - a child's right to be seen, cared for, reside with, and have "access" to a parent.

              Access, is the key element for which Child Support, CRA credits, and most of everything in family law churns on. When children <12 and/or <14 years of age are concerned, "custody" does matter.

              You can have 50-50 access with one parent being the "custodial parent" (having sole custody).

              For example in the matter of:

              Date: 2011-11-09
              Docket: F-2172/09
              URL: CanLII - 2011 ONSC 6451 (CanLII)

              The Respondent in that matter was ordered after a 17 day trial "sole custody" of the child and 50-50 access.

              This order, until such time a court orders otherwise, both parties of this matter had 50-50 access to the child in question but, the Respondent was the "sole custodial parent".

              The Respondent father shall have sole custody of the child, **** *****, born ***********.
              By the time ******** becomes involved in full-day attendance in school (anticipated to be September 2013), the parties shall have equal time with the child.
              Hope this helps.

              "Access" does not churn much on who has "custody". Access is *the most* important aspect of a child's "best interests". Give up access beyond 50-50, which the OP has already done, and you will be an EoW parent unfortunately.

              The "title" (or label) of "sole custodial parent" is really a point of conflict and the Children's Law Reform Act should be updated to use a different term.

              I propose "residency" to replace "access".
              I propose "responsibility" to replace "custody".

              And for it to be specifically "Residency and Responsibility" and NOT "Responsibility and Residency" versus "custody and access".

              Why? Because residency is the thing that matters. Time with the child!

              Collaborative Responsibility (rather than joint custody)
              Reasonable Responsibility (rather than sole custody)

              So an order would read:

              (Sole custody)

              The Applicant shall have the *reasonable responsibility* regarding all the major decisions regarding the child's life.

              --- OR ----

              (Joint custody)

              The Applicant and Respondent shall have the *collaborative responsibility* regarding all the major decisions regarding the child's life.

              Reason being... Often "sole custodial parents" are not "reasonable" in what they do. Putting in the term "reasonable" with "responsible" makes it clear that what they have to do, even though they are the one making the decision has to be by default *REASONABLE* and *RESPONSIBLE*.

              Collaborative means you have to work together and you are both *responsible*.

              Good Luck!
              Tayken

              PS: I just gave away some of the ontological study research I am doing in family law for my side project. ("Reducing conflict in Family Law through better terminology (ontology) - a Study")
              Last edited by Tayken; 10-25-2012, 01:25 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                You have the concepts of "access" and "custody" mixed up.

                Custody - decision making
                Access - a child's right to be seen, cared for, reside with, and have "access" to a parent.

                Access, is the key element for which Child Support, CRA credits, and most of everything in family law churns on. When children <12 and/or <14 years of age are concerned, "custody" does matter.

                You can have 50-50 access with one parent being the "custodial parent" (having sole custody).

                For example in the matter of:

                Date: 2011-11-09
                Docket: F-2172/09
                URL: CanLII - 2011 ONSC 6451 (CanLII)

                The Respondent in that matter was ordered after a 17 day trial "sole custody" of the child and 50-50 access.

                This order, until such time a court orders otherwise, both parties of this matter had 50-50 access to the child in question but, the Respondent was the "sole custodial parent".





                Hope this helps.

                "Access" does not churn much on who has "custody". Access is *the most* important aspect of a child's "best interests". Give up access beyond 50-50, which the OP has already done, and you will be an EoW parent unfortunately.

                The "title" (or label) of "sole custodial parent" is really a point of conflict and the Children's Law Reform Act should be updated to use a different term.

                I propose "residency" to replace "access".
                I propose "responsibility" to replace "custody".

                And for it to be specifically "Residency and Responsibility" and NOT "Responsibility and Residency" versus "custody and access".

                Why? Because residency is the thing that matters. Time with the child!

                Collaborative Responsibility (rather than joint custody)
                Reasonable Responsibility (rather than sole custody)

                So an order would read:

                (Sole custody)

                The Applicant shall have the *reasonable responsibility* regarding all the major decisions regarding the child's life.

                --- OR ----

                (Joint custody)

                The Applicant and Respondent shall have the *collaborative responsibility* regarding all the major decisions regarding the child's life.

                Reason being... Often "sole custodial parents" are not "reasonable" in what they do. Putting in the term "reasonable" with "responsible" makes it clear that what they have to do, even though they are the one making the decision has to be by default *REASONABLE* and *RESPONSIBLE*.

                Collaborative means you have to work together and you are both *responsible*.

                Good Luck!
                Tayken

                PS: I just gave away some of the ontological study research I am doing in family law for my side project. ("Reducing conflict in Family Law through better terminology (ontology) - a Study")
                Tayken, with all due respect, I understand the difference the difference between shared custody and joint custody. I was trying to ask if the fact that he remained in the decision making process (whether real or just a matter of options given the age of the child) as a joint custody parent would show his involvement and thus increase chances later for shared physical custody?

                Comment


                • #9
                  To add to what Tayken wrote, the Child Support Guidelines (the actual legislation, not just the tables) refers to "shared custody" in section 9. The CRA also uses the term "shared custody". This term is thus fairly well defined to mean the child resides between 40-60% with each parent.

                  Unless/until legislation is rewritten using different terms, "shared custody" is what we are stuck with, however I agree with Tayken that "residence" is a far more useful and accurate term. Our separation agreement is worded that the children "will reside" in such-and-such a schedule with each parent, and that CS will be determined "according to section 9 of the Guidelines". I don't believe the word "custody" is mentioned even once in our entire agreement. An earlier section describes "decision making." Basicly, the various terms associated with "custody" aren't necessary in an agreement, it's far more accurate to describe the residency schedule and shared/exclusive decision making. In terms of negotiations or even just general conversation, no one seems to use the same understanding of "custody" anyway, so why not just do away with the term?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Very good points mess, I don't use the word custody anywhere in my separation agreement proposal either based on your and other's postings.

                    My question remains: does it not increase chances of having the children reside with the parent at a later date if/when they return by collaborating continually with the other parent during their absence?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The collaboration part, yes; the language of the decision making clause in the agreement, no.

                      If there is status quo and the children are thriving and the other parent is ready to fight tooth-and-nail against any changes in access/residency, then having joint custody is not going to make any appreciable difference in the odds of gaining shared custody level at a later date.

                      If the parents are truly collaborating and both are concerned with their children's best interests, needs, and wants, then it is likely that the other parent will agree to a change in residency if the children wish it. I do think the issue that tips the scales is the parties' interpersonal relationship, not the wording of the agreement.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mess View Post
                        To add to what Tayken wrote, the Child Support Guidelines (the actual legislation, not just the tables) refers to "shared custody" in section 9. The CRA also uses the term "shared custody". This term is thus fairly well defined to mean the child resides between 40-60% with each parent.
                        It is a shame that legislation actually states "shared custody" versus "residency". I have gathered evidence (real, you can hold in your hand) of about 25 cases of people actually using their court orders to screw up the CRA and the other parent.

                        It just makes explaining things to the CRA so much harder because a lot of times people screw with each other through the organization and you have to explain in long unnecessary letters what defines "shared custody" to the person evaluating if you qualify under the terms of the court order and/or agreement.

                        As "access time" actually is what relates to the definition of "shared custody" and not the actual line that reads:

                        x. The Applicant shall have sole custody of the child.

                        y. The Applicant and Respondent shall split access time on a 50-50 basis of the child.

                        Give that to the wrong CRA agent with a crafty definition that you should get all the credits and payments because the custody is not "shared". Happens all the time.

                        Originally posted by Unevenplayingground View Post
                        Basicly, the various terms associated with "custody" aren't necessary in an agreement, it's far more accurate to describe the residency schedule and shared/exclusive decision making. In terms of negotiations or even just general conversation, no one seems to use the same understanding of "custody" anyway, so why not just do away with the term?
                        A very good question.
                        Last edited by Tayken; 10-25-2012, 04:21 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by baldclub View Post
                          Tayken, with all due respect, I understand the difference the difference between shared custody and joint custody.
                          Ok...?

                          Originally posted by baldclub View Post
                          I was trying to ask if the fact that he remained in the decision making process (whether real or just a matter of options given the age of the child) as a joint custody parent would show his involvement and thus increase chances later for shared physical custody?
                          Think in terms of this:

                          Joint custody in the model of shared parenting
                          Joint custody in the model of parallel parenting w/ split decision making
                          Joint custody in the model of parallel parenting w/ consent required
                          Sole custody to a single parent

                          Shared physical custody is what?

                          Joint custody in the model of shared parenting --- with 50-50 access?
                          Joint custody in the model of shared parenting --- with 60-40 access?
                          Joint custody in the model of shared parenting --- with 80-20 access?

                          See how many stupid permutations and combinations of custody and access that can be applied? It just makes everything a pile of mess and has people talking about "shared physical custody" which is??

                          The only element of the term you are using that could be "physical" is residency. Custody is a logical definition based on decision making and not the physical location of a child. Access is about the physical location of the child.

                          The terminology of family law sucks hardcore.

                          Good Luck!
                          Tayken

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mess View Post
                            The collaboration part, yes; the language of the decision making clause in the agreement, no.

                            If there is status quo and the children are thriving and the other parent is ready to fight tooth-and-nail against any changes in access/residency, then having joint custody is not going to make any appreciable difference in the odds of gaining shared custody level at a later date.

                            If the parents are truly collaborating and both are concerned with their children's best interests, needs, and wants, then it is likely that the other parent will agree to a change in residency if the children wish it. I do think the issue that tips the scales is the parties' interpersonal relationship, not the wording of the agreement.
                            Excellent point. The definition of "collaborative" needs to be very clear and concise. Like "with a common objective to success" or something. Not going to spill more beans on that one.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              How long is your posting?

                              Are you planning on moving back to kingston area when posting done?

                              Get this in court asap and get an order to facilitate your access while being

                              posted to other areas.

                              I had to get an order stating that my access would change around my

                              training/ deployments without negatively affecting how the courts viewed me

                              as a father.

                              As others have stated, do not give up joint without a fight.

                              You did not choose to move away, you do not choose when and where you

                              are sent for training, the judge in my case was appalled that my ex was trying

                              to use my service to my country against me.

                              Your not the first or the last military member to be in this situation.

                              Hang tough.

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X