Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

50/50 Arrangement May Equal A Loss Of Loss Of Relationship In The Long Run

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

  • 50/50 Arrangement May Equal A Loss Of Loss Of Relationship In The Long Run

    I'm curious to get the sense of this article by Gary Direnfeld here:

    50/50 Residential Arrangement May Equal Loss Of Relationship In The Long Run

    I'm not sure I'm getting whether he's saying that requesting a 50/50 parenting arrangement increases parental conflict and therefore is not in the children's best interest.

    I quote:

    "As soon as the argument over the kids becomes about the 50/50 residential care arrangement, the writing is on the wall that at least one of the parents has lost sight of the best interest of their children.

    These kind of fights tend to take on epic proportion and the next issue to be determined becomes who can baby-sit when one or other parent is unavailable because typically neither parent can be available 100% of their 50% of the time with whatever schedule is determined."

  • #2
    Originally posted by baldclub View Post
    I'm curious to get the sense of this article by Gary Direnfeld here:

    50/50 Residential Arrangement May Equal Loss Of Relationship In The Long Run

    I'm not sure I'm getting whether he's saying that requesting a 50/50 parenting arrangement increases parental conflict and therefore is not in the children's best interest.

    I quote:

    "As soon as the argument over the kids becomes about the 50/50 residential care arrangement, the writing is on the wall that at least one of the parents has lost sight of the best interest of their children.

    These kind of fights tend to take on epic proportion and the next issue to be determined becomes who can baby-sit when one or other parent is unavailable because typically neither parent can be available 100% of their 50% of the time with whatever schedule is determined."
    But, you have to read that in light of the other articles he has written. Like the one about dropping the whole "right of first refusal". What he is pointing out in the article is how to destroy a 50-50 agreement by fighting over irrelevant things like "who will babysit" etc... How a 50-50 agreement can be a nightmare if one (or both) of the parents don't understand the reality of the situation and to keep out of each others business.

    He concludes with:

    The key here then is not to fight for 50/50 time with the kids, but the kind of sharing of care that allows for a meaningful relationship with the kids. This kind of meaningfulness is measured by supporting school and extra-curricular activities, attending important functions of the child and having some recreational activity time for the mere fun of being together. Meaningful to the child also means freedom from parental conflict and animosity.

    The best you can wish for is a 100% relationship with your children with whatever time is available. Any time put towards fighting and you are undermining what you already have.

    Concentrate on what you’ve got and the future takes care of itself.
    Good Luck!
    Tayken

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Tayken View Post
      But, you have to read that in light of the other articles he has written. Like the one about dropping the whole "right of first refusal". What he is pointing out in the article is how to destroy a 50-50 agreement by fighting over irrelevant things like "who will babysit" etc... How a 50-50 agreement can be a nightmare if one (or both) of the parents don't understand the reality of the situation and to keep out of each others business.
      I read a lot of his articles yesterday and this is the one that confused me while the others made perfect sense.

      Comment


      • #4
        Oink: it's not going to do you any good to make a stink out of whether or not the teen (step-daughter) uses marijuana. You can't prove it and it will only make you appear over anxious and controlling. You may not like that I'm saying this but you will not get anywhere with putting forth your belief that she smokes pot.

        Has she been charged with possession? Trafficking? Any criminal offense even under the YCJA? And why are you going through your step-daughter's back-pack?

        You're going to have to pick your battles wisely, and this isn't one of them. So that "gun" you insist on sticking by, may just shoot you in the foot.

        Havng 50/50 custody is not about controlling what decisions the other parent makes. It's about making decisions equally, preferably mutually and if you demonstrate that it can't be achieved (to co-parent) you may not like the result.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by oink View Post
          How is that for proof? All am asking is that I do not want someone who I have confiscated marijuana paraphernalia from to look after our son. The question is, would you?
          If I had to choose between the following people taking care of my children:

          A) My ex
          B) New partner of my ex
          C) Disabled parents of ex
          D) Regular smoker
          E) Occasional Pothead

          I would take option E every time

          Comment


          • #6
            ^ hahahaha Janus. Thx, that gave me a good laugh

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Gary

              "As soon as the argument over the kids becomes about the 50/50 residential care arrangement, the writing is on the wall that at least one of the parents has lost sight of the best interest of their children.
              The 50/50 is completely irrelevant to his point, and his attempt to link it certainly strains any credibility that he might have. I don't quite partake in Tayken's unceasing bootlickery when it comes to this social worker.

              Parents who are fighting have often lost sight of the best interests of their children. It is the nature of the family law system. It doesn't matter if they are fighting for sole custody, 20%, 40%, or 50%, right of first refusal, or some other feature of the arrangement. It is the fight that causes the problem, not the particulars of that fight.

              Comment


              • #8
                How many childcare/daycare providers do you think smoke pot on a daily basis? I am sure it is a lot... personally I have no use for the stuff...however I can tell you that those who do smoke it are not all irresponsible. Simple fact...my own brother smokes the crap, however he never does so when my other little brother is around or even awake, he also watches our niece on a regular basis, but he has never once smoked up while caring for her.

                Just because the daughter uses pot, whether you, I or anyone else agrees, does not mean she is irresponsible with her younger sibling. There are many users who are able to control their urges and not smoke it in front of the children.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by oink View Post
                  I'll like to know if this guy is an expert on the matter, or just pulling it out of you know where?
                  Type in his name into the Ontario CanlII search and see if he is...

                  Nagy v. Bright, 2012 ONSC 986 (CanLII)
                  Date: 2012-02-21
                  Docket: 29841/07
                  URL: CanLII - 2012 ONSC 986 (CanLII)
                  Citation: Nagy v. Bright, 2012 ONSC 986 (CanLII)

                  91] Mr. Direnfeld was appointed by this court to conduct this assessment pursuant to s. 30 of the CLRA. Mr. Direnfeld is a well-known assessor who has had extensive experience in the area of child assessments. In order to prepare his assessment, Mr. Direnfeld was provided with relevant and comprehensive background information. Mr. Direnfeld met with both parties and Chloe and had contact with collateral sources.
                  ... The judge has this to say about Mr. Direnfield:

                  [95] These are very astute observations. The evidence before the court confirmed that the applicant continues to harbour contempt towards the respondent with respect to his affair with Ms. Tullett, in part leading to the deterioration of their marriage. I also find that the applicant presented unreasonable and unfounded concerns about Chloe’s welfare; for example, her vehement opposition to Chloe’s unidentifiable picture on Ms. Manfredi’s Facebook page and her overreaction to Chloe’s picture depicted in a local newspaper. I am also unimpressed with the applicant’s lack of judgment and courtesy in continually failing to provide detailed and timely information about Chloe to the respondent.
                  ... Also:

                  [165] In considering the best interests of Chloe, I am satisfied that Mr. Direnfeld, as an independent assessor, was clearly in the best position to make his recommendations. I have considered Mr. Direnfeld’s qualifications, methodology and factual determinations. In my view, Mr. Direnfeld’s review of the facts and information received from various sources have been borne out and confirmed by credible and trustworthy evidence before me. The foundation for his opinion has been amply established by the testimony of various witnesses including the evidence provided by the applicant and the respondent.[15] As I observed the parties and heard the evidence, I was struck at how astute Mr. Direnfeld was in his assessment of both parents and their interaction with Chloe.
                  I guess we can add a judge to the "bootlickeray" of this qualified professional...

                  Good Luck!
                  Tayken

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                    I guess we can add a judge to the "bootlickeray" of this qualified professional...
                    [personal attacks deleted by Administrator]

                    Judges are human, and they screw up, a lot.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Janus View Post
                      Judges are human, and they screw up, a lot. Get over them.
                      [response to personal attacks deleted by Administrator]

                      The courts aren't biased as you stated...

                      Also, feel free to backup your evidence as to how family law justices screw up "a lot". That may be beneficial if you could back it up with something relevant and some examples. How about some appeals in family law where errors in law were made... If there is a lot of examples as you propose surely you can assist everyone in identifying this...
                      Last edited by Tayken; 01-19-2013, 11:42 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        But, you have to read that in light of the other articles he has written. Like the one about dropping the whole "right of first refusal". What he is pointing out in the article is how to destroy a 50-50 agreement by fighting over irrelevant things like "who will babysit" etc... How a 50-50 agreement can be a nightmare if one (or both) of the parents don't understand the reality of the situation and to keep out of each others business.
                        I too don't agree with this article because like all his other articles he doesn't provide a starting point. Maybe as a mediator he is trying to stay neutral, but we all know that is not effective in resolving conflict. Somehow someone has to give in to reach an agreement.

                        I think more clear articles on how parents focus should be on the child AND increasing the childs relationship with the other parent are key. Presenting indepth parenting plans and ensuring all the basis for raising a child from two separate homes is more important.

                        A good mediator can find a way for both parties to come to an agreement. I have yet to see how he would achieve this as a mediator.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'd find the ALL weekends offer pretty tempting - that's a LOT of quality time with the kids. And, it's 3/7 days (42% overnights) i.e. shared custody.
                          And, you have twice-weekly contact with the school (Friday pickup, Monday drop-off) - that's the worst of it, though.
                          I find it very strange that she'd offer this.
                          I also find it very strange that she cannot understand: You get every Mon/Tues overnight, I get every Weds/Thurs overnight, and we alternate Fri/Sat/Sun.

                          Have you discussed who is the decision-maker for education/health issues? After all, that is what sole custody entails.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I bet she's not doing the math, or she supposes that you will bring the kids back Sunday night and lose an overnight. If she is against shared, she doesn't see what is happening here.

                            The downside is that you never get a weekend free, but that is life as a parent. If you can plan fun filled weekends with the kids, and stay in touch with the teach on Fridays and Mondays, there is no downside. I'd jump on it if there are no other issues.

                            It is amazing with younger kids. It is "meh" with teenagers; they have their own weekend plans. But it establishes you as a shared parent with involvement at the school.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It sounds like you two are talking along 2 completely separate tracks ... neither understanding what the other is saying. And making a lot of assumptions along the way. And the worst is that the mediator is apparently not picking up on this. THIS IS THEIR JOB!!!!

                              If she says 'weekends' is what all her friends have, then she is talking about ALTERNATING weekends.

                              There is some serious 'failure to communicate' going on here. Which means the mediator is not doing their job.

                              I'd let her have the 'primary caregiver' tag in return for
                              - 'joint custody' and
                              - 'EVERY WEEKEND (from Fri after school to monday morning) .. or the 2-2-5-5. ... and
                              - a clause that indicates she cannot change the school without a court order.
                              Last edited by dinkyface; 01-24-2013, 08:31 PM.

                              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