Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

50/50 Equal Parenting: The Debate

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

  • #91
    Rioe, my mother has a mental illness and my father is a selfish cheater. They didn't work together. When they split my mother denied my father any access and he disappeared. My childhood was spent with one parent who could not cope and we had to learn to manage early. Im not complaining because that brutality helped me become who I am today.

    However, if my parents hadn't been so hell bent on punishing each other for not being good partners, my childhood may have been different. My father was a good enough dad and would have had to pull up his socks if he had been in a 50/50 situation. My mother would have had to learn to share and work with him in that situation. I don't expect it would have been perfect picket fence leave it to beaver but we would have grown up in a situation with both our parents. As it stands, much of their "disagreement" has had a big impact on our psychological well being. My mother sees my father as a womanizing asshole. My father sees her as a crazy bitch. They both love their kids but hate each other more.

    The bottom line is that some parents love their kids and some parents hate their ex spouse more than their love for their kids.

    My partners ex started their divorce with "you'll never see your kids again". It came true. He spent tens of thousands trying to enforce an agreement she never had any intention of following. If there had been a designated 50:50, enforcement options to keep it at that, and psychological tools to protect the kids, things would be very different.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
      Dr. Gary? lol Who's that? Why not just watch Dr. Phil and follow all of his advice? lol
      I prefer caselaw, CLRA rules of family law. Especially stuff like "Maximum Contact".


      In your case, the father is asking for maximum contact and in my opinion .. guessing that he is just money hungry isn't a good enough reason to deny the small amount he's asking. 8 years of "almost" 50/50 and showing that the kids are doing well while in his care should be proof enough, let alone Rule 24(4) hasn't been met to affect his ability to parent.


      Nope, it's not necessary. Nobody here said that. 50/50 is not for everyone. In my opinion it is in your case though.


      Peeps are PM'ing you because they are cognizant that a good majority of posters here support an equal relationship with both parents. Your criteria doesn't qualify for denying a few extra hours of parenting time.

      To be clear, I'm receiving PM's also with peeps agreeing that it's just a minuscule amount of time he's asking and that you're causing drama for no reason. They also don't want to be scrutinised on the thread. People should post what they feel....I don't think there's any right/wrong answers...we're on a political forum.


      This is what I mean. You're digging to make him an inadequate parent.

      Are you trying to tell me that all this time at 35% he';s never gave his child meds or dealt with any of his ADHD behaviors? Seriously? Don't get me started .. I work in mental health .. what a crock!

      I see you still refuse to answer my question. What if he did all the "legwork", took classes, had an ironclad parenting plan and wanted to start fresh with you without any conflict"?

      I know you like to ignore this because you're dead set on denying your children an equal relationship .. even if he was the best dad in the world. That's what kills me.
      LF, lay off the newbie. You're badgering her unnecessarily. She is not going to say "You're right, I am only thinking of my own selfish needs and should stop trying to deny my long-suffering ex the right to be a loving dad to his children. I will go to court and rectify this at once".

      You are ascribing motives, emotions, and intentions to her that you don't know anything about. I've worked in mental health too, and we call this "projection".

      Take a deep breath and repeat:

      Not every divorced mother is my ex.
      Not every divorced father is me.
      Not every situation is mine.
      Other people are different from me.
      Different.

      (And as for Dr Gary Kneier, he's a well-known Calgary-based psychologist with a PhD. Not a TV star).

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by rockscan View Post
        Rioe, my mother has a mental illness and my father is a selfish cheater. They didn't work together. When they split my mother denied my father any access and he disappeared. My childhood was spent with one parent who could not cope and we had to learn to manage early. Im not complaining because that brutality helped me become who I am today.

        However, if my parents hadn't been so hell bent on punishing each other for not being good partners, my childhood may have been different. My father was a good enough dad and would have had to pull up his socks if he had been in a 50/50 situation. My mother would have had to learn to share and work with him in that situation. I don't expect it would have been perfect picket fence leave it to beaver but we would have grown up in a situation with both our parents. As it stands, much of their "disagreement" has had a big impact on our psychological well being. My mother sees my father as a womanizing asshole. My father sees her as a crazy bitch. They both love their kids but hate each other more.

        The bottom line is that some parents love their kids and some parents hate their ex spouse more than their love for their kids.

        My partners ex started their divorce with "you'll never see your kids again". It came true. He spent tens of thousands trying to enforce an agreement she never had any intention of following. If there had been a designated 50:50, enforcement options to keep it at that, and psychological tools to protect the kids, things would be very different.
        This is exactly what I'm trying to portray. Thank you Rock for sharing your personal story. Warring parents arn't qualified to judge each other's personalities or parenting skills. Just like QC, Australia ...50/50 should be the starting point...but not an absolute end point after all factors are weighed.

        An asshole dad or mom should have to display a pattern of assholeness with other people and across time (and have strong evidence of it) if we're going to relate it to parenting ability .. not just with each other. And although it could be a contributing factor it's STILL not abuse or a considered factor when analyzing ones ability to parent in the eyes of the CLRA.
        Last edited by LovingFather32; 01-11-2017, 12:29 PM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by stripes View Post
          LF, lay off the newbie. You're badgering her unnecessarily. She is not going to say "You're right, I am only thinking of my own selfish needs and should stop trying to deny my long-suffering ex the right to be a loving dad to his children. I will go to court and rectify this at once".

          You are ascribing motives, emotions, and intentions to her that you don't know anything about. I've worked in mental health too, and we call this "projection".

          Take a deep breath and repeat:

          Not every divorced mother is my ex.
          Not every divorced father is me.
          Not every situation is mine.
          Other people are different from me.
          Different.

          (And as for Dr Gary Kneier, he's a well-known Calgary-based psychologist with a PhD. Not a TV star).
          Not badgering. Not even saying I'm right. Just discussing the facts. That's why we're here. You can make this about my ex if you want Stripes. I'm advocating for ALL parents who are being denied equal parenting for reasons that don't seem to add up. I'm also advocating for maximum contact with each parent, just as parliament is. I'm sorry that you disagree .... politics as usual...no hard feelings I hope! :-)

          In fact I've tried to change the topic several times....switching to the importance of the correlation between maximum contact with parents and identity .... but our new poster came back with some large posts about her situation once again. No need to defend her. If she takes issue with the thread or certain viewpoints she can choose not to read or post here.

          PS ... Dr. Phil has a Ph D. also.
          Last edited by LovingFather32; 01-11-2017, 12:29 PM.

          Comment


          • #95
            Take a look at the phrases I put in bold: "I know you like to ignore this because ...", "You're digging to make him look bad ...", "You still refuse to answer my question ...". This isn't "discussing the facts". This is ascribing motives, intent and emotion to another individual in a situation where you cannot possibly know motives, intent or emotion.

            Comment


            • #96
              And that's all I've got to say about this.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by arabian View Post
                I was in what is referred to as an "intact marriage" for 30 years. My son's father certainly didn't bother his ass to spend much time with his son throughout all of those years - only when it suited him and there wasn't someone on TV which he preferred to watch. Now that we are divorced father RARELY phones his son. I continually pepper my son with "call your father... he is your father..."

                Now I am pretty sure that if there were $$$ involved with communicating with an adult-child my ex would be very interested in seeing his son.

                Just sayin...

                Ange - did your ex ever express desire to 50/50 parent in the past, by a pleasant email or conversation? Or did this newfound desire merely happen after he retained a lawyer to dispute the CS and arrears?


                He never once brought it up until the CS increase and arrears.


                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Ange71727 View Post
                  I'm starting threads about calculations and time so that I can make sure I am going about this correctly and informing myself along the way.


                  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                  You don't want to pay any child support. Show's the type of parent you are.

                  I suggest you stop using your child a pawn in a chess game or a piece in a monopoly game. It's not a game and it's not a business. It's a child's life. I would have left you for dad and never looked back if I was your child and you were my mom. I love my dad and would love to have more time with him, even if it's just an extra 5%, but you keep thinking that he just wants more time with me to lower his child support. I'm now caught in this conflict that is going to give me depression, anxiety, and a stream of other problems because you want me all to your self. I love dad as much as I love you. I'm really happy to know that he want's to spend more time with me. I enjoy spending time with dad.

                  8 years is quite an awful long time. The passage of time can be a material change in circumstance paired with other relevant minor changes.

                  Sounds like the extra money you are trying to save by not agreeing to 50% access, triple or quadruple that amount you will spend on a lawyer opposing it. Makes total sense. Instead of coming to an agreement with the father of your child and setting that money aside for your child's education or future, you are going to spend it on lawyers for the next 2 -3 years because you don't think things should be fare and equal. You're putting your wishes before the wishes of your child.

                  CAUTION - I was recently informed by a lawyer about parents who spend the child's entire life fighting over him and in the end, the child left both of them..Didn't want to see either. You think children enjoy this stuff? You think you're setting a good example for your children or society by being so selfish ? THink again. What is your true motivation? What are your intentions? Is he abusive? Does he want more time to reduce CS? Or he shouldn't have an opportunity to have the child instead of daycare? Which one is it? What's next? He returns the child home hungry? Trust me, we've heard it all.

                  You keep mentioning ROFR.. you mentioned it again in this thread ... are you seriously that concerned that the ROFR might give him the extra 5% that you don't want him to have? You're a state of art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

                  If you're going to accuse him of seeking 50-50 to reduce CS, be prepared to be accused of opposing 50% and keeping him at strictly 35% to avoid having to pay CS.

                  You keep fishing for reasons to oppose 50/50 and keep him below the 40% mark. If I was the dad on the other side, none of the reasons you have posted here would stop me from perusing 50/50, if anything the serious allegations you have made against me would persuade me to seek sole custody. I promise that I would bury you in debt along the way.
                  Last edited by trinton; 01-11-2017, 01:20 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                    You see variations on this idea all over the place, that you picked this person to be your kids' other parent, so obviously you thought they would be a good parent.

                    It's BS.

                    People change. People lie. People manipulate. People may even realize that their partner would be a poor parent, but figure that their own parenting will make up for it.

                    Then, true colours are revealed, the rose-coloured glasses are removed, the family is torn apart. And suddenly, your ex, who turned out to NOT be someone you would have chosen to have children with, has the children SOLO instead of you being around to make up for their inadequate parenting.

                    I know in my case, had I known then what I know now about my ex, I would NOT have gotten married and yes, never had my children.

                    You can say "oh, I don't regret what happened because I got my wonderful children out of it," but I call BS on that too. Sure, if I had never married my ex, I would not have these particular wonderful children, but I would have married someone else, who would likely have been a much better parent, and had different, equally wonderful, children instead.

                    The person my ex turned out to be to is not the person I picked to be the other parent to my children. I picked the façade person that I had been manipulated into believing was truth. That person never existed, and is certainly not the one with whom I am stuck coparenting my children now.

                    It might be good child development to have 50-50 relationships with parents who are both good people who just didn't work together as romantic partners. It cannot be good child development to be forced to spend equal time with one parent who is narcissistic, lying, selfish or bigoted.


                    This is exactly what happened in my case and I agree with you completely.


                    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
                      Not badgering. Not even saying I'm right. Just discussing the facts. That's why we're here. You can make this about my ex if you want Stripes. I'm advocating for ALL parents who are being denied equal parenting for reasons that don't seem to add up. I'm also advocating for maximum contact with each parent, just as parliament is. I'm sorry that you disagree .... politics as usual...no hard feelings I hope! :-)

                      In fact I've tried to change the topic several times....switching to the importance of the correlation between maximum contact with parents and identity .... but our new poster came back with some large posts about her situation once again. No need to defend her. If she takes issue with the thread or certain viewpoints she can choose not to read or post here.

                      PS ... Dr. Phil has a Ph D. also.


                      You brought my name into this. I came back so I wouldn't be discussed without input from the actual source!


                      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                      Comment


                      • Very interesting case: Gill v. Chiang, 2011 ONSC 6803

                        http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc...resultIndex=11
                        “The original Award gave 65% of the access time to the Mother, together with custody, and 35% to the Father. This percentage has now been reduced to 60% to her and 40% to him. They cannot, says the Mother, seem to be able to make decisions together”.
                        Parties didn’t cooperate/communicate well at all. Very acrimonious.


                        “The parties separated in July of 2006 and were divorced in June of 2009. The Father describes their relationship as “difficult, argumentative and unco-operative.” The Mother says that they still cannot have communications, “…without his threats and insults.”
                        Interestingly, much like another poster's case, the mom wrote in the affidavit:

                        James stopped paying child support entirely and abruptly in April, 2010 and I believe that was for the sole purpose of putting pressure on me to agree to the parenting change that he was requesting, namely, that the residence schedule in the Arbitration Award of Linda Chodos be changed to a 50/50 or week on week off arrangement
                        Again, does ^^^ sound familiar?

                        OCL chimed in with:

                        “Both children have been impacted by the separation and by the conflict between their parents. They are trying hard to keep out of the adult conflict but feel that they are often pulled in by both parents who do not always behave appropriately. They described examples where both parents have behaved in a way as to make them feel uncomfortable or have spoken to them about inappropriate adult matters that have placed them in the middle of their parents’ dispute.”
                        Both parents had weak points which is understandably, especially during the heat of separation. Both downplayed each other.

                        Mom felt that:

                        “ The Mother’s position is that there has not been a material change in circumstances, which would lead to a variation of the Arbitration Award with respect to custody and access”.
                        She goes on to say:

                        “The Mother sees no material change in circumstances, which would lead to a variation. She says that the Father is unable to set aside his own feelings about her and does nothing to foster her relationship with her. I have set out examples in these Reasons, which support the Mother’s position about the Father’s behaviour. That, in my view, does not mean that there has not been a material change in circumstances. While the Mother relies upon the Court’s findings in Reeves v. Reeves, 2001 CarswellOnt 277 (O.S.C.J.), I do not find it applicable in the circumstances of this case”
                        Judge...we can't communicate so I don't want to give him 50/50. (Wonder if it worked?)

                        The judge ruled in favour of the father's wish for 50/50, equal parenting.

                        “The following Orders shall issue for the reasons herein noted:


                        1. The Order of Madam Justice Allen made July 2, 2009 shall be varied so that the child access provision under the Arbitration Award is changed from what is currently a 60:40 split between the Mother and the Father, to a week on/ week off commencing January 1, 2012.”
                        I get the material change here was the children’s wishes to be with their father more. But if you go back to another posters other thread, she states that it would be detrimental for the kids to lose time with dad .. that told me a lot. It told me that they enjoy spending time with him. It’s only a matter of time before they also express their wishes to see him more.

                        Aside from their wishes, there seems to be a lot of chatter here about how 50/50 will NOT be ordered if parents don’t get a long. This is just one case that debunks that myth.

                        I also note that mom tried to use the financial piece (dad stopped paying CS as a way to pressure 50/50). Notice how the judge didn’t buy it and granted 50/50?

                        Parents need to stop attacking one another. Some falsify e-mails and make up allegations .. some claim other parents don't know how to care for ADHD children, etc.

                        As you can see...judges don't care much for your subjective thoughts of your ex partner's ability to parent. You better have DUI's, police records, or any other form of significant evidence that shows an extreme inability to parent.
                        Last edited by LovingFather32; 01-11-2017, 01:32 PM.

                        Comment


                        • While I am generally in favour of 50/50, I also think there may be some cases where it is not black and white. That is, so unfit as to have supervised versus parent of the year. Best interests of the children certainly is to have the support, love and maximum contact with each parent, however that may not always be a hard and fast 50/50.

                          A lack of police evidence or CAS abuse findings does not mean that spending 50 percent of time with a parent is the best thing for a child if there is a lot of bad parenting going on but not to the level of actual charges. There may be situations where having the majority of time with the more positive and stable environment is for the best while still maintaining contact and reasonable time with the other parent. The trouble is having actual criteria and proof of this when the parents don't agree. I still think 50/50 presumed at separation is a good starting point, just not that it is the end all and be all and the absolute best for the kids in all circumstances.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PeacefulMoments View Post
                            While I am generally in favour of 50/50, I also think there may be some cases where it is not black and white. That is, so unfit as to have supervised versus parent of the year. Best interests of the children certainly is to have the support, love and maximum contact with each parent, however that may not always be a hard and fast 50/50.

                            A lack of police evidence or CAS abuse findings does not mean that spending 50 percent of time with a parent is the best thing for a child if there is a lot of bad parenting going on but not to the level of actual charges. There may be situations where having the majority of time with the more positive and stable environment is for the best while still maintaining contact and reasonable time with the other parent. The trouble is having actual criteria and proof of this when the parents don't agree. I still think 50/50 presumed at separation is a good starting point, just not that it is the end all and be all and the absolute best for the kids in all circumstances.
                            It's never black and white. There will always be these grey areas. That's why we have lawyers to work through these grey areas. But then again, we wouldn't have lawyers in a perfect world.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PeacefulMoments View Post
                              While I am generally in favour of 50/50, I also think there may be some cases where it is not black and white. That is, so unfit as to have supervised versus parent of the year. Best interests of the children certainly is to have the support, love and maximum contact with each parent, however that may not always be a hard and fast 50/50.
                              Totally agree. I've always mainained that maximum contact and 50/50 is not for everybody and not absolute. But I firmly believe that the CLRA's Rule 24(4) (past conduct/violence) need to be thoroughly examined in conjunction with Rule 22(2).

                              If a parent is seeking 50/50 and has a clean record, not an addict, shows an extreme amount of effort, is already heavily involved in the child life and there are no other extenuating factors that would inhibit a healthy equal relationship.....then why not?

                              The trouble is having actual criteria and proof of this when the parents don't agree.
                              You bet. Thats' the precise reason I started the thread. To discuss the "criteria" a parent uses to deny another loving parents equal relationship. Some I totally agree with ... other's not so much.

                              When there's a parent (mom or dad) who's been there for many years and is almost at 50/50 and meets all the criteria of 24(4) (abuse, addictions, etc) and simply wants the last few percent of time for an equal relationship ... we need to get rid of our "He's only doing it for money" .. or "He cant properly give meds"...or "our kids calls my ex's g/f mom", or "We just can't get along".

                              These are highly subjective predictions and put downs that don't satisfy criteria to deny an equal relationship .. at least in my opinion.

                              If a parent is already heavily involved in a child's life and just wants that equal relationship, is not an axe murderer and comes with a great parenting plan and sense of motivation to effectively parent ...... it really shouldn't matter what the other parent thinks.

                              I still think 50/50 presumed at separation is a good starting point, just not that it is the end all and be all and the absolute best for the kids in all circumstances.
                              I agree 100%^ PM. There ARE many situations where 50/50 doesn't work. TOTALLY agree. Gawd I hope posters don't think I'm saying 50/50 is for everybody. lol That would be so silly.

                              This thread is to get a better understanding of that "CRITERIA" parents use to deny equal relationships. Is the criteria good enough to deny it? Do you have evidence contradicting CLRA's criteria for "ability to act as a parent" 24(4)?

                              Unfortunately, I'm observing a lot of "No's to all those q's and parents are relying on their subjective opinions of their ex's parenting ability.....often assuming that their ex can not adequately parent, which in many cases is the furthest from the truth.
                              Last edited by LovingFather32; 01-11-2017, 02:43 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by trinton View Post
                                You don't want to pay any child support. Show's the type of parent you are.

                                I suggest you stop using your child a pawn in a chess game or a piece in a monopoly game. It's not a game and it's not a business. It's a child's life. I would have left you for dad and never looked back if I was your child and you were my mom. I love my dad and would love to have more time with him, even if it's just an extra 5%, but you keep thinking that he just wants more time with me to lower his child support. I'm now caught in this conflict that is going to give me depression, anxiety, and a stream of other problems because you want me all to your self. I love dad as much as I love you. I'm really happy to know that he want's to spend more time with me. I enjoy spending time with dad.

                                8 years is quite an awful long time. The passage of time can be a material change in circumstance paired with other relevant minor changes.

                                Sounds like the extra money you are trying to save by not agreeing to 50% access, triple or quadruple that amount you will spend on a lawyer opposing it. Makes total sense. Instead of coming to an agreement with the father of your child and setting that money aside for your child's education or future, you are going to spend it on lawyers for the next 2 -3 years because you don't think things should be fare and equal. You're putting your wishes before the wishes of your child.

                                CAUTION - I was recently informed by a lawyer about parents who spend the child's entire life fighting over him and in the end, the child left both of them..Didn't want to see either. You think children enjoy this stuff? You think you're setting a good example for your children or society by being so selfish ? THink again. What is your true motivation? What are your intentions? Is he abusive? Does he want more time to reduce CS? Or he shouldn't have an opportunity to have the child instead of daycare? Which one is it? What's next? He returns the child home hungry? Trust me, we've heard it all.

                                You keep mentioning ROFR.. you mentioned it again in this thread ... are you seriously that concerned that the ROFR might give him the extra 5% that you don't want him to have? You're a state of art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

                                If you're going to accuse him of seeking 50-50 to reduce CS, be prepared to be accused of opposing 50% and keeping him at strictly 35% to avoid having to pay CS.

                                You keep fishing for reasons to oppose 50/50 and keep him below the 40% mark. If I was the dad on the other side, none of the reasons you have posted here would stop me from perusing 50/50, if anything the serious allegations you have made against me would persuade me to seek sole custody. I promise that I would bury you in debt along the way.
                                Thank you for posting this. This is exactly what I meant in my post.

                                At the end of the day, he is fit enough to have them for 35% of the time and nothing I've read from her has convinced me otherwise.

                                She is going to piss away thousands and effectively ruin her and possibly her children's financial future because this is the hill she's chosen to die on.

                                I honestly do NOT know how one spins that to their children. How do you tell them it was worth all that money and the ruining of their childhoods?

                                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