Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Moving during litigation

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

  • Moving during litigation

    So it turns out....all those great renovations my ex did, and wrote about in all his affidavits as proof of "material change" and bragged about being part of his plan to provide a "permanent family home" - well, they were so he could SELL and move. Just found out his house is sold and he is building, which will likely result in the kids renting or living with grandparents while this occurs. Odd move in the middle of litigation, no? So I ask you all this....do you think this will hurt him in court? He's refusing to mediate and refused another offer to settle. Just wants trial, which is his right of course. But why would you boast about having a permanent home where you can provide much needed "consistency" and "stability" (all buzz words he's thrown in) and then sell it? This isn't really a question. More of a wtf statement. Thoughts anyone?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • #2
    Renos and home buying occur throughout year regardless of litigation. Family court litigation often goes on for years. His excuse that renovating the home for all these years as reason for not spending time with his children is definitely lame but I don't think a judge will care one way or another.

    Is he building the home himself or going through a builder? That would make a difference insofar as time he has to spend with his kids but then I guess that's his problem. The promise of new bedrooms will fade as kids will tire of spending boring hours in a construction zone or dumped off at grandparents.

    Mediation, in your case, would probably be a colossal waste of time and money. I'd set your sights on trial knowing he will have to come up with a sizable retainer for his lawyer. This is going to be a very stressful time for him which will give you an advantage I think.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Ange71727 View Post
      So it turns out....all those great renovations my ex did, and wrote about in all his affidavits as proof of "material change" and bragged about being part of his plan to provide a "permanent family home" - well, they were so he could SELL and move. Just found out his house is sold and he is building, which will likely result in the kids renting or living with grandparents while this occurs. Odd move in the middle of litigation, no? So I ask you all this....do you think this will hurt him in court? He's refusing to mediate and refused another offer to settle. Just wants trial, which is his right of course. But why would you boast about having a permanent home where you can provide much needed "consistency" and "stability" (all buzz words he's thrown in) and then sell it? This isn't really a question. More of a wtf statement. Thoughts anyone?


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
      Well renovating to up a sale price and building a new home certainly falls under the umbrella of trying to provide a permanent family home. In fact, that sounds pretty nice for the kids if he's consider their needs in the new design. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at?

      If he's moving in the same area...I don't see any reason why a judge would care. People are allowed to move into nicer homes if they can afford it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Pursuinghappiness View Post
        Well renovating to up a sale price and building a new home certainly falls under the umbrella of trying to provide a permanent family home. In fact, that sounds pretty nice for the kids if he's consider their needs in the new design. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at?



        If he's moving in the same area...I don't see any reason why a judge would care. People are allowed to move into nicer homes if they can afford it.


        Of course he's "allowed". Lol.
        My point is that he made a huge stink about the renovations being his "material change" piece. Renos = better life. His affidavits speak of providing stability after renovating and yet at the time of trial the kids may not even be in a permanent home. It's just weird to me. Our son has learning difficulties and the core of my argument is that I provide more stability and consistency for him. My ex knows this is my stance so it's odd that he'd sell right when it matters that he shows he provides a stable home life. He has many other things working against him. Like the fact that he's let 8 years pass before asking for the kids more. I just wondered if a judge would consider this as an upheaval for the kids.


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by arabian View Post
          Renos and home buying occur throughout year regardless of litigation. Family court litigation often goes on for years. His excuse that renovating the home for all these years as reason for not spending time with his children is definitely lame but I don't think a judge will care one way or another.

          Is he building the home himself or going through a builder? That would make a difference insofar as time he has to spend with his kids but then I guess that's his problem. The promise of new bedrooms will fade as kids will tire of spending boring hours in a construction zone or dumped off at grandparents.

          Mediation, in your case, would probably be a colossal waste of time and money. I'd set your sights on trial knowing he will have to come up with a sizable retainer for his lawyer. This is going to be a very stressful time for him which will give you an advantage I think.


          They are already sad about the amount of time he spends "on the phone" or at the new building site. They've expressed this to me. I expect it will only get worse for them with a building project on the go. He and I built when we first got married so I know how all consuming it can be.


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Ange71727 View Post
            Just found out his house is sold and he is building, which will likely result in the kids renting or living with grandparents while this occurs.
            This is speculation. Don't get inside your head too much about it.

            So he's moving. So what? He fixed up the home to sell. People do it all the time. Try not to spin this in a way to gather ammo for yourself....sounds very high conflict. He's not trying to hurt you or ruin your life. He's trying to be an equal parent. Its' not so bad.

            Just wants trial, which is his right of course.
            No, he simply wants an equal relationship with his children .. you're denying him that. His last resort is trial I guess. I'd head to trial if I were him also. Great parents fight for their children. Good on him. I know some who say "party time" and enjoy the freedom. Not this guy. He's willing to put in the work, just like I and many other parents did.

            My opinion is that you probably shouldn't blow this up in to a huge catastrophe about what an ass he is. I think the peeps reading these threads are starting to see the real picture.

            By the way .. your SC judge suggested that you squash the status quo that you were so heavily relying on and "allow" an additional day of access...which would probably send him over the 40% threshold. Did you take the judges advice?
            Last edited by LovingFather32; 04-25-2017, 09:05 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ange71727 View Post
              Of course he's "allowed". Lol.
              My point is that he made a huge stink about the renovations being his "material change" piece. Renos = better life. His affidavits speak of providing stability after renovating and yet at the time of trial the kids may not even be in a permanent home. It's just weird to me. Our son has learning difficulties and the core of my argument is that I provide more stability and consistency for him. My ex knows this is my stance so it's odd that he'd sell right when it matters that he shows he provides a stable home life. He has many other things working against him. Like the fact that he's let 8 years pass before asking for the kids more. I just wondered if a judge would consider this as an upheaval for the kids.


              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
              Well, if the renos allowed him to sell his home at a higher price which then allowed him to build a brand new home....that would = better life. I'm in the process of building a new home right no and I've been working on my current home for weeks to try to sell it at the highest price possible so I can have more money for furniture for the new house...pretty normal stuff.
              And yes, sometimes I have to deal with build issues...its not that serious. It doesn't take up any significant amount of time that would mean I'm neglecting my kid's needs. I'm not sure why you're discussing how much time their dad spends on the phone with the kids....seems pretty intrusive.

              I think you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill...and for all the wrong reasons.

              I'm unclear as to the link between your child's learning disabilities and the building of a new home. People that have kids with learning disabilities build new homes all the time....and again, maybe he'll have a nicer designed space for the kids. That's one of the benefits of building.

              As far as waiting 8 years to ask for more time...that's not good but the material point is that now he is asking for more time and hoping to become a more involved father. That's a good thing for the kids. Personally, I wish my ex was more supportive and involved in my child's life. I'd be encouraging that if I were you...not trying to block fair access for such vague reasons.

              You asked if building a new home would hurt him in court. The answer is probably not. If you're trying to build an argument based on this...it seems very weak, in my opinion.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pursuinghappiness View Post
                Well, if the renos allowed him to sell his home at a higher price which then allowed him to build a brand new home....that would = better life. I'm in the process of building a new home right no and I've been working on my current home for weeks to try to sell it at the highest price possible so I can have more money for furniture for the new house...pretty normal stuff.

                And yes, sometimes I have to deal with build issues...its not that serious. It doesn't take up any significant amount of time that would mean I'm neglecting my kid's needs. I'm not sure why you're discussing how much time their dad spends on the phone with the kids....seems pretty intrusive.



                I think you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill...and for all the wrong reasons.



                I'm unclear as to the link between your child's learning disabilities and the building of a new home. People that have kids with learning disabilities build new homes all the time....and again, maybe he'll have a nicer designed space for the kids. That's one of the benefits of building.



                As far as waiting 8 years to ask for more time...that's not good but the material point is that now he is asking for more time and hoping to become a more involved father. That's a good thing for the kids. Personally, I wish my ex was more supportive and involved in my child's life. I'd be encouraging that if I were you...not trying to block fair access for such vague reasons.



                You asked if building a new home would hurt him in court. The answer is probably not. If you're trying to build an argument based on this...it seems very weak, in my opinion.


                I'm not sure why the leap from inquiring about something to building a case around it. I won't need to build a case around this but if asked how I provide more stability there will be a multitude of reasons that point more in my favour.
                The biggest consideration for me is not control or money, although that is how I am portrayed here. I see LF posting. (Can only imagine what he's saying!! - yes Tayken I actually ignored him). It's my kids. They have been vocal about where they'd like to live and are happy with things as is. Just because they bring things up to me (even the amount of time daddy spends not engaged with them) it doesn't make it intrusive if I redirect the conversation. I am here for them and they tell me things that bother them, as kids should with their mom. If he'd wanted to "become more involved" I'd be very encouraging. The fact is, it's the same old. They partied all weekend there last weekend and then I had to get them both prepared for a Monday test and presentation, all on Sunday night. He's still missing their sports. He's still not volunteering for their trips and events. If I had days off in my schedule like him that's what I'd do - especially if I am trying to prove I am worthy of getting the access I wanted.
                For the record, I have offered exactly half of the time he's asking for as well as chopped a lot of money off the table. I would say that counts as reasonable.


                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ange, you need to stop asking for validation from the peanut gallery. You asked for people opinion and its now created a feeding frenzy. Go to trial and then update. He is the one who has to explain his 'material change' stop feeding the trolls in this forum. Otherwise you get the feedback you deserve.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                    Ange, you need to stop asking for validation from the peanut gallery. You asked for people opinion and its now created a feeding frenzy. Go to trial and then update. He is the one who has to explain his 'material change' stop feeding the trolls in this forum. Otherwise you get the feedback you deserve.


                    I'm not trying to feed the trolls. It isn't my intention. I want help to get through this awful, stressful situation because it is taking a toll on me. I guess I am looking in the wrong place because support isn't readily given to the people denying the equal parenting. There are lots of developments occurring with my case and I honestly just wanted people's feedback. My lawyer told me my ex was crazy to move now and shoot his "stability" argument in the foot which is why I thought I would see what people thought here. I don't want to be the one to have to leave just because the trolls are following me.




                    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Theres a difference between asking for advice and feeding the trolls. You're already going through a war in the court room, don't wade into one here. There are plenty of people on here who think nothing of attacking you. Whether or not your ex is right is moot. He thinks he is right and until a judge says differently, neither one of you will agree on that fact. My advice to stop posting these types of questions was for your own mental health. Remember too that your lawyer is being paid by you to tell you what you want to hear. Your ex could have a finished house by the time this whole thing is over. He could have started this process knowing he would be in a new house that benefits the kids by the time he is in front of the judge. What you believe is happening and what is actually happening are two different things. Let the judge decide.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Not sure why PH and I are being called trolls. She asked for advice and we gave it. Just because it's not the advice she wants to hear doesn't mean we're trolls that need to be fed. Geez.
                        She said the new house would be bad for him in court. Our opinion was no.

                        She said all he wants is trial. Just reminded her that there would be no court or trial if she at least "tried" a shared parenting regime. He doesn't want trial....he's being forced in to one.

                        She said the judge disagreed with status quo and advised her to give him more access .. I just asked if she was following the judges advice.
                        Last edited by LovingFather32; 04-26-2017, 09:17 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                          Theres a difference between asking for advice and feeding the trolls. You're already going through a war in the court room, don't wade into one here. There are plenty of people on here who think nothing of attacking you. Whether or not your ex is right is moot. He thinks he is right and until a judge says differently, neither one of you will agree on that fact. My advice to stop posting these types of questions was for your own mental health. Remember too that your lawyer is being paid by you to tell you what you want to hear. Your ex could have a finished house by the time this whole thing is over. He could have started this process knowing he would be in a new house that benefits the kids by the time he is in front of the judge. What you believe is happening and what is actually happening are two different things. Let the judge decide.
                          I'm not attacking this poster...nor am I a troll.

                          She asked if building a new home had something to do with a lack of stability on her ex's part and the answer is no. Lawyers tell clients a lot of bull...especially when they're trying to keep conflict going to pad their bill. People build new homes all the time...and punitive measures aren't taken with regard to child custody issues unless the home is being built an inconvenient distance away.

                          If this poster has a valid reason for denying fair access, she simply hasn't demonstrated it here. Obviously her ex has to prove there's been a material change...and that's his challenge....otherwise, there hasn't been a valid reason for denial presented to this forum.

                          What is disturbing on the poster's part is the amount of badmouthing of the parental skills of the father...often with the kids involvement. I know the poster is justifying this but the reality is that courts don't look well upon that stuff...its just a fact. I don't think the poster sees her behavior as intrusive but observers do.

                          When people give you perspective on how they view what you're posting...you can take it or leave it. But because it differs from what the poster wants to hear...it doesn't make the advice attack-like in nature.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Im not saying you are trolls. My comments were directly to the poster and how she continues to start these threads and they just go down the path of posters being honest and her not liking what anyone has to say. I like hearing what others have to say but threads started by this poster become battles over who is right or wrong. I completely agree that her "fight" is completely based on both parties being unreasonable on what they feel is best for the children. The problem within this forum is that not a lot of people share her view and all it does is open the box of argument between all of us. We become trolls because she continues to battle against us.

                            As I said in another one of her threads, the majority of us disagree so stop getting into a circular argument with no end. Posting a new thread with a new topic on how she doesn't agree with her ex's actions just perpetuates that situation.

                            I agree with you guys, moving during litigation isn't an issue. He's doing what he can to create an ideal situation for the kids. He answers to the judge. Not Ange and definitely not a bunch of strangers on a forum.

                            I am hoping we can stop the ridiculous pages and pages of arguments before they start. Stop posting opinions as a "question" which just leads to disagreement.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              "The children should have maximum contact with both parents if it is consistent with their best interests". See: Gordon v. Goertz 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27.

                              "The status quo will be maintained absent compelling reasons demonstrating the necessity to change to meet the child’s best interest": Perchaluk v. Perchaluk, 2012 ONCJ 525 (CanLII), para 29.

                              "To disturb the status quo, there must be compelling evidence to show the welfare of the child would be in danger in maintaining the status quo, namely the evidence must clearly and unequivocally establish that the status quo is not in the child’s best interests": Miranda v. Miranda, 2013 ONSC 4704 (CanLII), para 26.

                              In the end, I think this will be the central focus of litigation/trial.

                              Poster's question w.r.t. moving has been asked and answered. Time to end the thread perhaps?

                              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