Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ex wants to change schools again

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

  • Ex wants to change schools again

    1. Ex and I have joint custody, 50/50 access to D6. Ex and I previously battled in court over daycare, their application to move daycare close to Ex's new house in the suburbs was dismissed and costs were awarded to me.

    2. This year we retained an arbitrator to decide schools/kindergarten. Again, Ex wanted a school near their house, we argued for one closer to the core where D6 was born and resides with me and my partner. The arbitrator selected my school and awarded me costs. It is a Catholic school - D6 is not catholic yet but I am converting because my partner is Catholic. Ex didn't care it was Catholic at the time.

    3. Ex has indicated they wanted to move D6 to a new school after Kindergarten. I'm like... we have an arbitration order! So we ask the arbitrator to clarify the scope of her decision. Arbitrator says "the decision was for kindergarten ONLY". So now Ex believes they have carte blanche to re-open the school decision from scratch.

    Apparently we were supposed to word the arbitration application to enumerate "and all elementary school grades thereafter"? Even our lawyer is dumbfounded by the arbitrator's stance. What about status quo? Material change of circumstance? We are assuming the latter still applies.

    4. We have since retained a PC with arbitration powers. This PC tends to agree that Ex needs to show a material change of circumstance to change schools, but also thinks the previous arbitrator's scope clouds the issue. Here's where it gets awesome. Ex is claiming the Paris attacks are the material change in circumstance and Ex no longer wants D6 to be exposed to religion or religious schooling. Ex is claiming we are violating his rights as a parent to protect D6 from religion.

    The PC is leaving it open whether we arbitrate this or go to court. We are thinking court. Ex is self-representing now, and I'd love to see Ex explain this to a judge.

    Questions
    - Does the arbitrator's scoping of the previous decision being "kindergarten only" hurt us, or will status quo of the current school hold weight in the court's eyes, i.e. require Ex to bring forth a material change in circumstance to change schools?

    - What's the case law on religious schooling if one parent is an atheist? I am presuming the courts will lean towards religious schooling as a positive and not see it as a violation of Ex's rights.
    Last edited by LearningToFly; 12-02-2015, 01:02 AM. Reason: clarity

  • #2
    Your point will be to prove that events like that have occured before child attended this school and there have been many.

    You should have another school option that is in the same area where child attends minimizing the change for child. Why should child be removed from area ?

    PO job is to prove a change in circumstance and that her choice of a school is a benificial for the child.

    Comment


    • #3
      As you both have child equally, I would think both school districts should be considered.

      Not sure about case law re religious schooling, but regardless of whose district, perhaps a public school would be best if both parents cannot agree regarding religion. A religious school is reinforcing religion on a constant basis regardless of which parents time it is. The parent who wants to encourage the religion could have the child participate in church and related activities on their time.

      I agree that the other parent should not have agreed to the catholic school initially if it was a problem, but it has only been kindergarten so far, and not into the upper grades already so a change would hopefully not be too stressful on the child. I also think the Paris attacks are a weak argument, but be that as it may I think that you might lose this round if the other parent insists that religion is an issue.

      District is another issue entirely, not sure how that would go, you have one advantage in that child is already in your district, but if child is changing school to public anyways(potentially), that might open it up.

      Comment


      • #4
        4. We have since retained a PC with arbitration powers. This PC tends to agree that Ex needs to show a material change of circumstance to change schools, but also thinks the previous arbitrator's scope clouds the issue. Here's where it gets awesome. Ex is claiming the Paris attacks are the material change in circumstance and Ex no longer wants D6 to be exposed to religion or religious schooling. Ex is claiming we are violating his rights as a parent to protect D6 from religion.
        This has no merit. You have a right to expose your child to religion if you choose and the ex has, presumably, never had enough of an issue with religion to have it included in your agreement prior to this point.

        From your previous posts including the ex's issues with exposure to ethnic groups, your ex sounds like a self-righteous bigot that is attempting to use this as is convenient to have the child moved closer to them. IMO, being exposed to the bigotry is always worse for the child.

        Will ex suddenly want to claim a material change to remove the child from the country because our new government is welcoming tens of thousands of Syrian refugees and they don't want the child exposed? And if so, how does the ex plan to qualify being exposed to refugees as damaging versus the child becoming a refugee if he wants to flee this country?

        All very extreme, but just the same as religious fanaticism is dangerous for kids (which I'm assuming is ex's position for basing material change on the Paris attacks), so is anti-religious fanaticism. I don't think a judge will be at all impressed to have this BS in the courtroom.

        Nuts.

        Comment


        • #5
          In a cursory glance at some cases in Ontario the judge considers if either of the parents are currently actively involved in the religion/church. Here is one example:

          https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...resultIndex=13

          Comment


          • #6
            This is kind of tricky. If I'm reading this right, you were not interested in Catholicism until getting with this current partner, long after your separation? So the child was originally intended to be non-religious when you were together with your ex? That might be expected to continue, and your ex's temporary agreement with it for kindergarten might not affect much. I have to say, I'm with your ex on this one, even if he's using flimsy excuses. I'd have a big problem agreeing to have my child brought up in the religion of my ex's new partner, when it wasn't something ever intended when the child was born or at separation. The onus would be on you to prove why continuing this religious education at this particular school would be in your child's best interests. Offer to switch to the public school in your neighbourhood, to see if it's the religion or the location that your ex finds most objectionable. If the courts are unbiased () they will not automatically lean towards a religious school as better than a public school. I would think neighbourhood would be a primary consideration, not religion, as courts like to see children stay in a familiar environment.

            Comment


            • #7
              I agree with Rioe. Stability and familiarity are important - much more than the parent's newly acquired religious affiliation.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm not sure how a judge would see it, but to me, a Catholic school is a religious school - it draws from the teachings of one particular religion (although obviously you don't have to be Catholic to send your kids there). A public school is religion-neutral - it doesn't offer Catholic teachings, it doesn't offer instruction in atheism, it has nothing to do with religion at all.

                If I were a judge with two parents of different religious convictions (one of them a recent convert to a particular faith, the other an atheist), I'd lean towards neutral public schooling so as not to reinforce one parent's religious beliefs over the other. Parents can teach their kids what they want about religion (Catholicism, atheism, Druidism, whatever) during their parenting time.

                I agree the Paris attacks are irrelevant and there's no change of material circumstance. I do think your ex has merit in not wanting kid's schooling to be shaped by a religion which isn't shared, especially if this is something new that wasn't a factor when you were planning to raise the kid together. The kid is only in kindergarten, so it's not like there's a long status quo of attachment to that particular school. A good public school halfway between you and the ex sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.

                Comment


                • #9
                  In re-reading the thread I see that your child attended catholic daycare/kindergarten last year (decided by arbitrator).

                  I assume the daycare/kindergarten is the same as the grade school? So your ex is proposing a change of schools (to non-Catholic) because he is atheist?

                  However, the question likely comes down to the arbitrator's ruling - was the determination of the daycare/kindergarten intended to be just for the daycare/kindergarten year or does the father have to prove a material change of circumstance to have question of school location heard.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks everyone for the responses.

                    For what it's worth, ex and I were both baptized and raised Protestant, and we separated when D6 was 18 months old. We hadn't had a deep conversation about religious upbringing plans for D6. The strident atheism is a new development post-separation (along with strident anti-vaccination, but that's another story). Converting Catholic is not something I am taking lightly, it has been four years in the making.

                    Really the question is if we have to relitigate the school decision a second time from first principles because neither I or my lawyer realized that kindergarten somehow isn't considered "school" to some and a decision there may not set a new status quo school for D6. That intent was always to resolve the conflict on schools this year and move on. Now we have to do it yet again because Ex was okay with the Catholic school 6 months ago and now is not okay with continuing it for future grades.

                    I am fine compromising on a public school for D6 in the same area she is attending now. I always have been open with a number of schooling options - this Catholic school was one of four that I proposed. Ex has always proposed the school in his neighbourhood or schools outside both our catchment areas. Our previous compromise on schooling (before the last arbitration) was a public school outside our areas but equi-distant... And the school turned it down due to being full from students in the catchment area. After that we couldn't agree on anything in each other's areas due to the distance, leading to arbitration.
                    Last edited by LearningToFly; 12-06-2015, 10:18 PM. Reason: Clarity

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Just an update here, arbitration has begun but will be moving to a panel with a family law expert co-arbitratror (to help our PC who is not an expert in family law), questioning, and a court reporter. Ex was making some very questionable claims in their opening statements so we decided to adjourn and convinced our PC that more formality was better. We found easily a half dozen sworn statements in their filing that would likely fall apart as misleading or even outright deceptions under questioning.

                      The religion argument as I suspected was a red herring - it should have been central to Ex's filing, but maybe was point #3. The primary focus is as it always was - the superiority of schools and environment of Ex's neighborhood. Ex has been tying to move D6's school and primary residence to Ex's house in the suburbs for 3 years now... this is attempt #3 (Ex's application has been dismissed twice with costs awarded to me).

                      We've never challenged this move directly as a violation of our parenting agreement (the new residence is in a different county than D6's stated residence in the court order), but this will be one of the pillars of our defense.

                      We're also going to make offer to settle that D6 can attend the current school or optionally attend a non-religious school in our school jurisdiction.

                      I doubt Ex will take it, this is not about D6's welfare, this is about power. Ex has now been manipulating D6 to say things like "I hate my school", and "I want to go to the other school, I will have better friends", and trying to use that in the arbitration proceedings as proof of "the wishes of the child". It really sucks. I don't want to badmouth Ex so I just tell D6, "Ex and I disagree sometimes. Ex is not always right. This is your school.".
                      Last edited by LearningToFly; 04-30-2016, 11:56 AM. Reason: typo

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        If the matter has already been decided then I'd consider going for summary judgement based on res judicata.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          No material change in circumstance has come up. The other parent agreed to the enrolment of the child in the current school. That I am assuming was made ON CONSENT.

                          One thing that judges/arbitrators hate is when someone agrees to something and it becomes an order and they suddenly want to find some material change in circumstance to disrupt the status quo.

                          The major hill to climb for the other parent is the agreement that was reached and the resulting order. If the other parent didn't agree with the decision they should have appealed the decision. But, you would look like a total idiot appealing an order that they consented to.

                          The matter will not be ordered on the moral code that the other parent is relying upon. The arbitrators will have to fall back on case law and do a lot of research to come up with the proper decision.

                          If there was an agreement about habitual residential location of the child made (on consent) and the other parent broke that agreement without obtaining the necessary consent... The judge/arbitrators are not going to see the other parent as being reasonable.

                          In Ontario 9 times out of 10 if you are the moving parent you are stuck. There are parents driving all over Toronto, Durham, Hamilton and Peel because of stupid ideas of where they want to live versus where they should live in the best interests of their children.

                          There is case law (posted in my threads) regarding the reasonable time a child can spend in a car commuting back and forth to school.

                          The other problem you face is that an Arbitrator and even a Judge cannot make an order for a mutually located school unless the school board is made a party to the case. The boundaries of school districts were put in a place so parents couldn't shop for schools like this. You could walk out of all of this with an "order" that the school will not abide by because it is binding to you and the other parent... Not to them. They have their own Rules, Regulations, Bylaws and Laws that they are subject to.

                          I would recommend to you (and your lawyer) that the matter of the fact that the school district is not a party to the case and that existing boundaries set for by the school boards need to be adhered to. This means that either the other parent or your school district is going to be selected. If they chose something in contravention of the school board's ability to execute the order may be useful as toilet paper.

                          In a matter of "law" I am of the opinion the other parent has very little to stand on. Considering that there have been already 3 costs orders against the other parent. Does the other parent even realise how bad that looks on them?

                          Good Luck!
                          Tayken

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            A follow up to this old thread. D6 got to remain at her existing school, minimal costs were awarded in our favor. Wish Ex got a bigger costs award, but at least the outcome was relatively positive..

                            ..Except, we're now getting word from the school that D6 is saying to her teachers that "Ex hates Jesus", and D6 is missing at least a day a week of school on Ex's parenting time. Apparently there are "appointments", but I have no knowledge as to what these appointments are - Ex books medical specialists or other doctors without informing me. Until recently that is, when Ex asked for my insurance to cover a particular specialist.

                            Ex claims this is exactly the same as how we take D6 for flu vaccines annually without Ex's consent.... Ex doesn't quite grasp the notion of "inform" vs "consent" (i.e. we inform Ex if D6 goes to a doctor, or gets a medicine, etc., just as Ex can bring D6 to doctors..... but Ex refuses to "inform" us ahead of time or even give us appropriate details afterwards!)

                            During parent-teacher interviews, it came out that Ex also has told the school administrators and teachers on numerous occasions that "D6 doesn't want to be here, she is just here because of a court order". The undermining continues. Sigh.

                            Any thoughts as to how to get Ex to, you know, actually bring D6 to school regularly and start informing us on what these medical appointments actually are?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Any thoughts as to how to get Ex to, you know, actually bring D6 to school regularly and start informing us on what these medical appointments actually are?
                              You are in a situation where if the other parent is in contempt of the order then it is time to file the motion and begin the process. As well, you are going to need to secure affidavit evidence from the above mentioned witnesses. A simple statement of "belief" made on behalf of one of these professionals is not going to be enough. You are going to need sworn statements about what the child in question is repeating in class.

                              If the child is in Grade 1 and misses too much school truancy officers will get involved. The missing of school isn't a huge issue really. The biggest challenge you face is the fact that the other parent is seeking medical advice in contravention of the court order. No doubt this is for nefarious reasons.

                              Generally HCPs will shop doctors to try and undermine an existing order:
                              Look see judge! I was right! The child has a problem!

                              The problem is that the clinicians involved need to be served the court order prior to their engagement. One way (in Ontario) to find out what doctors the child is going to is to request their OHIP history from the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Not sure how you make this request in AB but, I am sure they have a similar process. The report will give you every encounter detail, the encounter reason code (ICD9 which you can Google) and the full details of the clinician that billed the provincial plan. You can then go to each doctor with the order and request all the medical records.

                              This will piss off the other parent extremely because Doctors are usually detailed in keeping encounter notes. If the other parent has said anything stupid it will be documented in the encounter notes. Don't be demanding but, simply ask for the full copy of the medical records. If they refuse then go through the clinician's college to make the request. Generally doctors will hand them over (for a small fee) without any issues. Especially when they realise there is a court order and another parent. Often times they will simply refuse to treat further unless both parents are present.

                              Your leg work now is to gather the evidence in support of a contempt order. In fact, I would say you really need to motion for "sole custody" potentially if the other parent is putting the child in question's education and health and well being at risk.

                              What drives me nuts is that a teacher will witness this kind of parental manipulation and doesn't report it to the CAS. The statements you have quoted demonstrate that the child is at risk of emotional harm. You may want to gently recommend that they consider raising the matters to the proper authorities. I am sure they have a copy of the existing order and know there is conflict. They should be working to protect the child from conflict (aka EMOTIONAL HARM).

                              You probably have been keeping the long list of nonsense emails that the other parent has been sending in support of their possibly contemptuous conduct. That gets filed with your motion with the application. But, you should get the Affidavits from the professionals that have witnessed the child's conduct. That is hard. You need to tread very lightly when you bring a child's service providers (doctors, teachers, etc...) into the mix. So you may have to motion for an OCL-like entity or Section 30-entity to interview these witnesses rather than get them to prepare affidavits. They don't need to judge the other parent. Just simply say the child reported X Y Z on dates 1 2 3. Nothing more nothing less. (Apologies as I am not familiar with Alberta rules as well as Ontario.)

                              Read this article Your Social Worker - Gary Direnfeld, MSW, RSW prior to involving teachers and doctors. Let Gary be your guide on how to move forward. (Read the other articles.)

                              Clearly the other parent has not resolved the fact that they have had costs ordered against them and an order they don't like.

                              I do not recommend mediation or arbitration for this matter. It is too complex for any arbitrator to deal with and they are often too soft on this stuff. You need to bring this before the Queens Bench. Also, you need to request SUBSTANTIAL costs UP FRONT in your motion request.

                              You are dealing with an HCP who thinks they are "clever". They are not. They are going to walk right into a contempt motion and possibly losing joint custody. I don't think a judge would disrupt the access order from a 50-50 based one with the current absences from school. But... A judge would more than likely order the parent to take the child as a condition of purging the contempt. You won't put the idiot in jail... What will happen is that the idiot will have a pile of rules placed on their conduct. If they fail to purge their contempt then on the return of the matter after 6-12 months (or at the instance of a failure to purge) will order sole custody.

                              HCPs are rarely clever. They are generally idiots.

                              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