Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Joint versus sole custody..same thing?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Joint versus sole custody..same thing?

    From the "Is custody overblown" thread..........

    Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
    My ex has sole. I have input, she has final say. To be honest, that is no different then others here that have joint with one parent having final say.
    Originally posted by Pursuinghappiness View Post
    This I agree with. We have joint custody with me having final decision making on minor/major decisions...so basically I have sole custody.
    Is it, in the vast majority of cases, true that Sole w/joint input and Joint w/final say to one are both one and the same?

    If they are indeed the same thing, then I could settle our custody issue by agreeing to give Respondent the Sole w/joint input that they offered over the Joint w/her having final say that I offered.

    Does anyone have a personal experience (that they don't mind sharing) to show otherwise?

  • #2
    In our case, Sole w Input and mediation for disputes = Sole with her blocking some (not all) info.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by firhill View Post
      From the "Is custody overblown" thread..........

      Is it, in the vast majority of cases, true that Sole w/joint input and Joint w/final say to one are both one and the same?

      If they are indeed the same thing, then I could settle our custody issue by agreeing to give Respondent the Sole w/joint input that they offered over the Joint w/her having final say that I offered.

      Does anyone have a personal experience (that they don't mind sharing) to show otherwise?
      Mostly.

      IMO, the only real difference is if, in the case of sole custody, the agreement/court order doesn't provide that the NCP be entitled to information from the child's care providers (read - school, Dr, Dentist etc).

      With joint, the entitlement to that information is provided for by definition of joint custody. With sole custody, unless the agreement otherwise provides, the NCP has no entitlement to access the service providers. So an NCP requests for information could be stonewalled or otherwise disregarded by Dr., dentists etc.

      That is why, if you end up on the wrong end of sole custody, you work into the agreement or request the court order include that you are entitled to all information from the child's health care and educational providers and are entitled to notice, and attendance, of all appointments and activities related thereto.

      Comment


      • #4
        IMO they are just words to define the type of parent to label someone. Either you are a full time parent (equal, shared custody) or a part time parent (joint custody) or not a parent (sole custody). There has to be at least one full time parent for a child. The lucky kids have 2 full time parents. Note that even with an intact marriage there may only be one full time parent.

        To be a full time parent you need:
        - to live in or really near your childs school.
        - be able to support yourself.
        - have the basic needs to financially provide for the child. Not relying on the government or the ex or that 10 hour part time job that changes employers ever 2 weeks.
        - have a job that allows you to pickup and drop off your child within reason to and from school. Like a 9 to 5 or a steady rotational job that allows for routine. Jobs with excessive travel, evening hours or weekends prevent someone from parenting.
        - ability to flex your schedule to attend your childs events and raise them on your time.

        I laugh when traveling salespeople, pro athletes or parents who live 2 hours apart fight over custody because they are basically saying to the judge that the child only needs one parent and that parent should be them.

        Terms like "final say" or "primary residence" or "attends school wherever parent A lives" should be abonished.

        Sole Custody should only be awarded rarely, when one parent is absent or incapable or unwilling to parent.

        ...jsut my thoughts...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Canadaguy View Post
          or not a parent (sole custody)...
          Sorry, I kind of take offence to this.

          My ex has sole. In my situation, winning joint was even an uphill battle as we hadn't lived together for over a year when my child was born and we had broken up prior to my daughters birth.

          While there was no abuse allegations, it sure was clear that if I wanted joint, I was going to have to fight for it. And in the mean time, any time with my new child was going to be hard to come by....so I relented, but got the wording in that gave me as close to joint, without having joint. Even my lawyer said I have as close to joint custody as one could get......but I still get the stigma of my ex having sole....

          But I am involved. In 8 years, I haven't been able to make maybe 10 days with my kid. Most of which were made up though. I am a parent. My daughter knows it. My ex and I make joint decisions and support each other when it comes to discipline. To call me not a parent because my ex has sole, insults my relationship with my kid.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
            My ex has sole. In my situation, winning joint was even an uphill battle as we hadn't lived together for over a year when my child was born and we had broken up prior to my daughters birth.
            And that is what is unfortunate about the termonology. Too many people who want to be a parent, involved in their child(ren) lives have to fight for it. It should be automatic, judge asks you "do you want to be involved and be a parent? Yes, then do that and have joint custody."

            Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
            While there was no abuse allegations, it sure was clear that if I wanted joint, I was going to have to fight for it.
            Very sad that any parent would have to fight to be a parent. The other parent must facilitate a relationship with the other parent for the child, and if they don't the law should focus on facilitating a relationship with both parents, not deciding who should get the child.

            Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
            I am a parent. My daughter knows it.
            That is all that matters. What a piece of paper says with some fancy made up words and termonology means nothing.

            Comment


            • #7
              I have joint custody but my ex acts as if all decisions rested with her when we're supposed to discuss and decide jointly.

              IMO all that it means is that if she makes really stupid decisions I do have the right to take her to court over it. Which for 99% of issues is never worth doing unless it's clearly in the child's best interests.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by firhill View Post
                Is it, in the vast majority of cases, true that Sole w/joint input and Joint w/final say to one are both one and the same?
                Note these are my definitions... One of the things often debated on this site is that the various Acts and Laws in Country need to unify the terminology (ontology) of what defines "custody" and "access". Across not just the Divorce Act but, tax law, and all other laws and subsequently provincial laws such as the FLR, FLA, and the CLRA.

                Full Joint Custody / Legal Joint Custody

                This is when both parents have agreed to or an order of the court in writing has stated that the parents have to consult with each other for every major decision in every area of "custody" pertaining to the children identified in the agreement and/or order.

                In this situation neither parent has a "veto" over the other parent's decision making. Generally in such an order/agreement there is a dispute resolution mechanism outlined should the parents not be able to agree. This is usually identified as "arbitration" but, can be done through "mediation" or a combination of mediation-arbitration (med-arb).

                Joint Custody in the Model of Parallel Parenting

                Different types of this kind of "joint custody".

                a) Split Decisions

                One parent has health care, the other is responsible for education etc... Again, the granularity of the split but, usually the "custody" is split evenly between the parents.

                c) Full Parallel

                Similar to Full Joint Custody but, the major difference is that a communication plan targeted at reducing parental conflict is the major element. Parents are given a strict guide line on how to govern themselves on coming to a major decision but, neither parent has "veto" over the other.

                Note: In all situations of "Joint Custody" both parents have full access to the documentation for the children despite any of the above generally.

                Full/Sole Custody

                a) Explicitly stated as Full Custody

                This is when one parent is identified by agreement and/or order of the court to be the full custodial (or sole custodial) parent to the child and they are responsible to make all major decisions for the child. There is no need to consult with the other parent on making these decisions. There is very little recourse for the non-custodial parent to have any say into the major decisions for the children.

                b) Sole Custody w/ Expectation to Consult Other Parent

                This is where the order expects the parent to consult the other parent but, in the event there is a disagreement that parent can veto the other parent's recommendation/opinions. This is generally done in situations to assist the non-custodial parent should the custodial parent be making a horrible decision about the children. It gives them an opportunity to put forward their opinion, have the other parent disregard it and not consider it, take that evidence forward on motion (or to arbitration) and intervene.

                These often read that the parents will work together and in the event there is a disagreement parent X's decision shall prevail over parent Y's. Usually in this model the consulted parent has full access to all medical records and educational records for the child/ren.

                The Unilateral Decision Maker

                Also better known as the HCP (High Conflict Person)... These are the people that despite what a court order or agreement says they will do whatever they feel is right for them. Not what is in the "best interests" of the child. They will bully, threaten and manipulate any third party care provider (doctor/teacher/etc) with a distortion campaign against the other parent.

                Good Luck!
                Tayken

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by iceberg View Post
                  - to live in or really near your childs school.
                  I am not a pro-full custody parent but why do you need to live next to the school?
                  For anyone who wants to be a parent to their child living in or near the child's school district is very important.

                  As the child grows up, they form bonds with the community they are in. They make friends with kids they go to school with. They play with the neighbourhood kids after school. They make freinds with kids they play sports with whom live in their community. When they reach the ages of 12-14 the child starts to get the say on how they want to spend their time.

                  Going to the "other parents house" 45 minutes away on a school night is something the child may not want to do because they want to play with freinds in their school district, closer to their primary parents home.

                  Next thing that may happen is the child becomes busy during the week with school and sports that they decide it is best only to see the other parent every other weekend. Thus, a 50/50 schedule changes to that of one similar to a sole custody schedule.

                  Another point is that if you do not live in the child's school district and the other parent decides to move, the child will (if at capacity) have to change schools. Whereas if you live in the child's school district their would be no reason to change schools if the other parent moves away for their own personal reasons.

                  By living outside or at a distance from your child's school basically grants the other parent as the primary parent and stacks the deck for a judge to pick the child to move with the other parent if they so decide in the future.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    ^ Very well said.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Canadaguy View Post
                      For anyone who wants to be a parent to their child living in or near the child's school district is very important.

                      As the child grows up, they form bonds with the community they are in. They make friends with kids they go to school with. They play with the neighbourhood kids after school. They make freinds with kids they play sports with whom live in their community. When they reach the ages of 12-14 the child starts to get the say on how they want to spend their time.

                      Going to the "other parents house" 45 minutes away on a school night is something the child may not want to do because they want to play with freinds in their school district, closer to their primary parents home.

                      Next thing that may happen is the child becomes busy during the week with school and sports that they decide it is best only to see the other parent every other weekend. Thus, a 50/50 schedule changes to that of one similar to a sole custody schedule.

                      Another point is that if you do not live in the child's school district and the other parent decides to move, the child will (if at capacity) have to change schools. Whereas if you live in the child's school district their would be no reason to change schools if the other parent moves away for their own personal reasons.

                      By living outside or at a distance from your child's school basically grants the other parent as the primary parent and stacks the deck for a judge to pick the child to move with the other parent if they so decide in the future.
                      ^^^ agreed as well.

                      In addition...

                      1. A judge cannot order a school that is equal distance between both parental homes unless ONE of the parents lives in the catchment.

                      2. Justices are really sticking to Rule 22.(1)/22.(2) ("Jurisdiction" / "Habitual Residence") in Ontario. Don't mess with Rule 22.(2) and especially Rule 22.(3) ("Abduction"). You will find your court application returning to the court of competent jurisdiction quickly and with prejudice against you.

                      3. Live as close to the children's school as possible. Demonstrate that where you live is important to the best interest of THE CHILDREN not to your personal life, "dreams", "wishes", etc...

                      4. I have seen a justice leverage the point made by Canadaguy first-hand by a justice in the SCJ. The parent whom had moved was blown-away that a justice would consider (or even threaten) to change the access schedule to the parent who remained in close proximity to the school. The justice basically stated all the same points Canadaguy made in this posting. (This was despite a section 30 custody and access evaluator's recommendation the court order a school equal distance between both parents - which the justice kindly ripped apart in great detail for everyone in the court room and why the "expert" was "clueless" to the realities facing the court.)

                      Good Luck!
                      Tayken

                      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