Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shared Parenting definition

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by cpartener View Post
    I’ve just looked in Canlli, and I have to say that my eyes started to gloss over. How do you know what’s relevant, what applies and what doesn’t?
    Searching Canlii is a skill, which you will get better at through time. Use the advanced search and put in key words that will get you cases that contain them. Also put a filter on the date, as you don't want to go back too far.

    Originally posted by cpartener View Post
    Teenwolf – When you say you think the court will direct him to pay in accordance with the CS Table, you mean full support or Offset?
    I wasn't referring to either. Rather, he will pay based on his line 150 income regardless of his bankruptcy. Whether it's the full amount or offset, it will be based on his line 150 income.

    Originally posted by cpartener View Post
    I should clarify “George's CS payments are larger than his mortgage payments. If this doesn't get settled as offset, I'm afraid George will have to claim bankruptcy. How will the courts look at him after that?” Based on having taken over the full marital debt and having paid full support even though it should have been Offset, George could only afford a home the next town over in a lower income area. The neighborhood is okay, but he’s barely making ends meet because the Full Support is more than the mortgage he could get. It’s not a case of “Yay, our mortgage is less than our cs”, it’s a “Holy crap, our cs is more then we can afford but we need to provide a home for the children.”
    You're mingling two separate issues: offset CS and a reduction in CS due to possible undue hardship. Seeking offset CS is based on the fact that you're in the 40/60 range. And you want to keep this parenting arrangement because it's in the best interest of the child(ren). Taking on full marital debt and struggling to make ends meet would be an issue for reducing CS - not offsetting it. Undue hardship is an uphill battle in court.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by cpartener View Post
      I’ve just looked in Canlli, and I have to say that my eyes started to gloss over. How do you know what’s relevant, what applies and what doesn’t?

      Teenwolf – When you say you think the court will direct him to pay in accordance with the CS Table, you mean full support or Offset?

      I should clarify “George's CS payments are larger than his mortgage payments. If this doesn't get settled as offset, I'm afraid George will have to claim bankruptcy. How will the courts look at him after that?” Based on having taken over the full marital debt and having paid full support even though it should have been Offset, George could only afford a home the next town over in a lower income area. The neighbourhood is okay, but he’s barely making ends meet because the Full Support is more than the mortgage he could get. It’s not a case of “Yay, our mortgage is less than our cs”, it’s a “Holy crap, our cs is more then we can afford but we need to provide a home for the children.”
      The only thing determining offset is the proportion of time the kids spend with each parent. I wouldn't bring up George's mortgage (or his commute, or his debt load) because it's irrelevant and judges are unlikely to be sympathetic. After divorce, many people's standard of living goes down. A not-so-nice house in not-so-nice neighbourhood and debt is part of the standard package. If you can prove you're over the 40% threshold, that's all you need.

      Don't overthink what Jane is spending money on, or how unfair it is that life is hard for George. Just demonstrate that the children reside with George not less than 40% of the time over the course of the past year.

      In terms of what to ask for, you might ask for the order be amended to read "The residence of [kids] shall be not less than 40% of nights over the course of calendar year to be spent at the home of each parent. This parenting regime shall be shared parenting as contemplated in Section 9 of the FCSG".

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by stripes View Post
        Don't overthink what Jane is spending money on, or how unfair it is that life is hard for George. Just demonstrate that the children reside with George not less than 40% of the time over the course of the past year.
        Agreed. And you want the 40/60 range to continue because it's in the best interest of the child(ren) - not because George is in a financial pinch.

        Comment


        • #19
          Please trust that this should have remained 100% solely about Judy/Elroy!!

          We've dealing with a PC to resolve some issues causing stress on the children, which should have been taken care of months ago but Jane delayed. The agreement is open in one respect and we asked the PC to solidify this which would have increased our time by a fraction - we'd still be under 45%. Unfortunately, Jane has been refusing to adjust the schedule arguing that we were only seeking to change the cs, BUT WE HAVE OVER 40 ALREADY, another 2% doesn't make a difference!!!!!!!!

          Offset is 40/60, it doesn't matter if we had 60, we'd still be paying her because George makes more. We've never argued that. She gets the cs, we pay more proportionally in s.7. It's not an argument on that front.

          Because she wouldn't sign the agreement without a year of FS, she's now arguing that she's entitled to it forever, that she has primary custody and any change we make is only out of greed.

          She won't consider the adjustment in days to make things better for the kids - EVEN THOUGH we're already within 40/60. And PC was at a stalemate because of it.

          It's maddening watching Judy/Elroy in tears and stressed out every other week (schedule is rather abnormal) and she refuses to acknowledge it and adjust the schedule (which the agreement leaves open, but both parties have to agree of course). Jane just wants her money and now that we're in June, it's all she can see and the PC process is now halted and we're headed back to court.

          I know it seems like I'm mixing the two up. I just need to get a feel for what we're looking at and how to broach this. We're not terribly confident in our lawyer. We want to make sure that what we thought is supposed to be happening is the general belief of everyone else. That we're not coming at this from left field.

          Yes, our standard of living is lower, but the kids wouldn't know it and that's what matters. as a child of divorce myself, we go to great pains to ensure that Judy /Elroy live the happiest lives possible. Jane refuses to acknowledge the one flaw in the schedule that makes them upset/stressed and now we're caught in a fight over money again.

          Sigh. This never ends, does it.

          Comment


          • #20
            This is the perspective of the courts generally:
            -Mothers with no jobs or low income should get full child support.
            -Either they keep the dads at below 40% or they let them get above 40% but through their "discretion" they decide that the dad should still pay more than the mathematical offset.

            The courts absolutely do NOT care that the dad will go bankrupt NOR do they care that he has no home. All they care about is Mom and the kids....

            If I were you I would not talk about the financial hardships of paying full support because the judge will use that to infer you are interested in custody for financial benefits .

            Family Law is bias, unless the mom is straight up crazy.

            Comment


            • #21
              I’m sorry, I’ve got to vent and go a bit off-topic for a moment…

              That makes me, as a woman, so angry! (not that you said it, but that it seems to be true). Just because you can give birth to a child doesn’t automatically make you a good parent or a better parent than the father!! This has caused George more nights in tears than I can count. He loves Judy and Elroy so much and the fact that Jane is a woman should not make her the automatic default!! Lawyers and Judges she not just hand over children to the person with ovaries!!!!

              I have a good friend whose father was one of the first fathers to awarded full custody in Canada. That was in the early 1970s. I would have hoped that things would have continued to progress by now. I expect equality to go both ways in this country.

              It feels like we (George/Judy/Elroy and myself) are stuck at the mercy of a self-centred, money grubbing *%^&$. If you’re being told repeatedly for years that a situation exists that is causing your children pain and anguish, do you ignore it or eliminate the situation?!?!?!

              George has continued to absorb all the financial Bullsh** she has thrown to prove to the courts he just wants to be with the children. And yet all it seems to do is somehow show that money is all we’re concerned about?????? If we could just lay out his communications with his lawyer on the table for the judge, they’d see that 95% of the emails regard the care and best interest of Judy/Elroy. Money has been the afterthought. Every time we go to Jane/Lawyer with an issue about the children, she warps it into a money issue. It is so bloody infuriating!!!!!!!!

              I am the child of divorce, my brother was the same age as Elroy and I was the same age as Judy. My parents/family did so many things wrong and they didn’t understand how much we actually took in and understood. George and I have worked so hard to not make those same mistakes and make sure that the children, when in our care at least, are the happiest they could possibly be and not exposed to the things I was. Among other things, we never press them for information, we never say bad things about Jane/family/boyfriends. Even when we're battling with Jane, we are supportive of her to the children. I can see the signs, having been there, that Judy/Elroy understand our home is a safe, comfortable and open family home for them where they trust in us completely. I can also see, and hear, the signs that they don't feel the same about being with Jane.

              When I was over the age of majority I happened to come across my mother’s copy of the court papers. Things were different in the 1970s, just OCL reports and court papers, no emails or texts. It backed up everything my mother had ever told us, many were things we shouldn’t have known or been aware of as children. Reading those papers as an adult was enlightening and solidified my understanding, from childhood, of the situation. I shed some tears, but it was a crucial step for my growth. Should Judy/Elroy wish to see the OCL report and court documents when they are over 18, we’ve decided to let them as this was so important for my understanding. If they ask for more, we will allow them access to George’s communications with his lawyer and even emails/texts with Jane. On our side, they will only see a father who did nothing but fight tooth and nail for equal time to be with the children he adores. A father who did not and would not stop fighting for them and to be with them. As a child of divorce, I can tell you that this is something they already know and feel, even at this young age. As adults, I feel it's their right to understand how the most crucial years of their lives came to be.

              Vent over.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by cpartener View Post
                I know it seems like I'm mixing the two up. I just need to get a feel for what we're looking at and how to broach this. We're not terribly confident in our lawyer. We want to make sure that what we thought is supposed to be happening is the general belief of everyone else. That we're not coming at this from left field.
                You’ve talked about the financial hardship is this post. I’m not questioning that; rather, don’t mention it in court. The focus is 40/60 range.

                Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                If I were you I would not talk about the financial hardships of paying full support because the judge will use that to infer you are interested in custody for financial benefits.
                Exactly!

                Originally posted by cpartener View Post
                That makes me, as a woman, so angry! (not that you said it, but that it seems to be true). Just because you can give birth to a child doesn’t automatically make you a good parent or a better parent than the father!! This has caused George more nights in tears than I can count. He loves Judy and Elroy so much and the fact that Jane is a woman should not make her the automatic default!! Lawyers and Judges she not just hand over children to the person with ovaries!!!!
                You’re preaching to the choir. I could add a lot more to this, but I'll pass. I'm not in the mood to rant.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Teenwolf View Post
                  . You’re preaching to the choir. I could add a lot more to this, but I'll pass. I'm not in the mood to rant.
                  And I'm sorry for mine. George had just be notified of something that blew my lid. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much of a second chance to edit or delete a post

                  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