Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

50/50 Custody

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

  • 50/50 Custody

    I'm currently going through a long and drawn out divorce and 1.5 years later...the Child Custody issue has not been finalized. I have one child under 12 and currently he is living with a shared custody arrangement. I have him 70% of the time and the Interim order was arranged as per my shift work schedule. Since June 2004 it has been status quo. However, my child's father insists on 50/50 custody. In turn my child states they want the same. We are talking about alternating weekly. Sometime in the summer I saw a program where this type of arrangement was proven not to work for the child if the parents did not get along and I mean...do not get along. One reason was that the parents could not make decisions in the best interest of the child because the hatred for both got in the way. It was also known to cause the child not to have a sense of being and not knowing where home was. I would agree to such an arrangement if my ex-husband had the best interest of the child in mind but this is not the case. Rather the child is used as a tool for revenge. Has anyone experienced this? Any advise for court?

  • #2
    So you have joint custody, 70-30 access? If this has been the status quo for 1.5 years, it will most likely stay the same, if you go to court.

    As for your ex using your child as revenge. This cannot continue. You have to try to find alternative methods to communicate with your ex, without involving the child. E-mails, a communication log, third party drop offs & pick ups, anything to keep him out of the line of fire.

    Have you tried councelling, even if the ex won't participate, you and your child will benefit.

    When I first separated, I was so hurt, betrayed, angry that I said some thing in front of my children, that I now regret.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for the response. If the access remains as status quo then I could live with that because I will remain as the primary and care and control. I do have my child in councelling every two weeks and it seems to be helping however, my ex doesn't think that our child needs it so he refuses to take him when he has his access time.

      I realize that no one can stop someone from being a complete jerk and using the child as a tool of manipulation...maybe that's a sign that the adult need help.

      Comment


      • #4
        I think that the key thing to keep in mind in this case is how the child is going to view the contested issue...

        Look at it this way. Basically, you are saying that you do not want to increase your contact from 30% of the time to 50% of the time. The same goes for the father who seems to want to decrease his contact with the child from 70% to 50%.

        The reality of the situation is of course not this callous, but you need to make sure that whatever arrangement is reached that the child is completely aware of why exactly why custody was assigned in the way it was.

        As for whether or not a change is good/bad... I would suggest talking with the child and if he/she wants to spend more time with you to try and make it work. It might be difficult, but it is very important.

        Comment


        • #5
          April,

          Sounds like you have a difficult situation on your hands.

          You have an interim order for 70-30 shared custody regime. I am not sure how long its been in effect.

          Shared custody is defined as equal sharing of time.

          Joint Custody is defined as such as your current situation where the child spends more time with one parent. However each parent can make decisions in regards to the child.

          Parallel Parenting is defined that the parent will make decisions for the child when the child is its its care and also responsibilities can be divided
          such as schooling, medical, religious etc

          The onus will be on your x to prove that a 50-50 shared time regime will be in the child's best interest. I suspect some weight would be given to the voice of the child considering the age.

          Joint Custody has been ordered in situations to prevent parential alienation and for other reasons. You do have a staus quo situation on your hands but claim there has been problems. What the courts will see is all of a sudden these problems come to light when they are all of a sudden dealing with a request for more access. They will see you never filled a motion to change the status quo and they would question why you haven't in light of the problems. Timing is everything and how your side is expressed.

          The courts may grant the increase, they may not. They may order that the office of the children's law to be involved to get the views of the child.

          They would consider proximity of residences and how the child's schooling would be effected etc with the increase in time. The court's objective is to maximize contact subject to the best interest of the child here and now and forever into the future.

          You could argue that the other parent wants 50% time is to get out of child support obligation however this often fails nowadays because they could counter this argument and say you want 70-30 to collect child support.

          I will look up some case law that I know where the courts ordered joint custody contrary to having virtually no communication and no - co-operation and post it in a subsequent link.

          Comment


          • #6
            Logicalvelocity,

            Besides the CanL11 website, is there any other sites to look up case law?

            Thanks
            Grace

            Comment


            • #7
              April,

              Some jurisprudence on joint custody mostly in Ontario

              I posted links to the cases I could find at canlaw:


              Kaemmle v. Jewson (1993), 50 R.F.L. (3d) 70,

              Stewart-Croll v. Croll (1996), 24 R.F.L. (4th) 219, 113 Man. R. (2d) 60, 131 W.A.C. 60,

              Mol v. Mol (1997), 40 O.T.C. 1, [1997] O.J. No. 4060, (Ont. Gen. Div.)

              Waugh v. Waugh (1998), 42 R.F.L. (4th) 415, [1998] O.J. No. 4041 (Ont. Gen. Div. Oct 01, 1998),

              Dagg v. Pereira (2000), 12 R.F.L. (5th) 325, [2000] O.J. No. 4450, (Ont. S.C.J.),

              McDonald v. McDonald - 2000 Ontario

              South v. Tichelaar (2001), 20 R.F.L. (5th) 175, [2001] O.J. No. 2823,

              R. (C.) v. A. (I.) 2001 WL 447488 (Ont. S.C.J.), 104 A.C.W.S. (3d) 705, [2001] O.J. No. 1053,

              Desouza v. Desouza – 2002 WL 36331 (Ont. C.J.),

              Anderson v. Wilkins –2002 WL 1603430 (Ont. S.C.J.), 115 A.C.W.S. (3d) 96, [2002] O.J. No. 2724,

              M. (T.J.) v. M. (P.G.) – 25 R.F.L. (5th) 78, (Ont. S.C.J.),

              Cox v. Stephen (2002), 30 R.F.L. (5th) 54, [2002] O.T.C. 499, [2002] O.J. No. 2762, (Ont. S.C.J.); affirmed at

              Cox v. Stephen (2003), 179 O.A.C. 45, 47 R.F.L. (5th) 1, [2003] O.J. No. 4371, (Ont. C.A.).
              http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/20...onca10838.html

              Hartlen v. Hartlen (2002), 2002 WL 42066 (Ont. S.C.J.),

              Huffman v Kuffner, 2003 SKQB 208, [2003] S.J. No. 292 (Sask. Q.B. May 02, 2003),

              Sidky v. Sidky (2005), [2005] W.D.F.L. 2496, [2005] W.D.F.L. 2489,

              D.R.H., v. K.B.K (2003) (Ont. C.J.)
              http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/oncj/20...oncj10013.html

              HEWAT v. HEWAT(2003) (Ont. S.C.J)
              http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc12707.html

              FARQUHARSON-MYERS v MYERS (2003) (Ont. S.C.J.)
              http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc12922.html

              SUKHU v. HAMID (2003)
              http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc12841.html

              LEFEBVRE v. LEFEBVRE (2002) (OCA)
              http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/20...onca10596.html

              Szczecina v. Piatek, 2003 CanLII 2255 (ON S.C.)
              http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc12842.html

              Sellick v. Bollert (2004), 130 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1164, [2004] O.J. No. 2022,
              http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc11218.html

              Z. (A.) v. W. (J.) 2004 ONCJ 157, 11 R.F.L. (6th) 180,
              http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/oncj/2004/2004oncj157.html

              Papp v. Hunter (2004) (Ont S.C.J)
              http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc10697.html

              BERNARDI v. BERNARDI (2005) (Ont. S.C.J.)
              http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc14521.html

              To summarize, from a lot of these cases, there was poor communication and co-operation between the parents. However, Joint-shared Custody regimes were ordered as it was determined to be in the best interest of the child.

              Comment


              • #8
                Grace,

                Can law is the only site that I know of that has free viewing of collections of case law.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Logicalvelocity,

                  I find the Can Law site very useful, although I feel for the litigants that now have to share with the public their "dirty laundry", not to mention how their children would feel to know this information is available online.

                  Do you know of any reputable sites, that charge a fee, and open to the "non lawyer" that would be useful to anyone that wishes to represent themselves.

                  Thanks so much,
                  Grace

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Grace,

                    Most judicial records are available to the public. Additionally, anyone can attend a hearing etc unless the judge orders otherwise.

                    All you need is a case name or file number and the registar will allow you to view these records unless there is a publication ban issued by the judge. You can also make photocopies of these files.

                    One concern I would have is since these records are available to the public, anyone in general, makes you really wonder about privacy and financial information such as Itax returns etc are attached to financial statements.

                    Is this a really good idea, considering all the identity theft that goes on nowadays. Those financial statements ask for account numbers etc.

                    Best to put some XXXXX is the account numbers for privacy purposes or block out your SIN number on itax returns and assessments.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Logicalvelocity,

                      I tried to view a case study that was referenced in one of the links that was talking about a case where the parents did not get along at all, can you please help me find the link, I have been looking for some time and it is no where that I can find it. Here is the case..... Dougherty v. Jepson 2002 Carswell ONT (2202) O.J. No. 1349 (Sup. Ct.) Maybe this is a case that could help many for reference. Thanks

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Can anyone direct me to a link that shows what the best interest for the child test is? I would like to take a look at it. Thanks

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Lisa,

                          In Ont, custody and access applications falls under two statutes

                          Children’s Law Reform Act

                          R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.12

                          http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/S...sh/90c12_e.htm

                          Section 24

                          Merits of application for custody or access

                          24(1) The merits of an application under this Part in respect of custody of or access to a child shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 24 (1).

                          24(2) In determining the best interests of a child for the purposes of an application under this Part in respect of custody of or access to a child, a court shall consider all the needs and circumstances of the child including,

                          (a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and,
                          (i) each person entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child,
                          (ii) other members of the child’s family who reside with the child, and
                          (iii) persons involved in the care and upbringing of the child;

                          (b) the views and preferences of the child, where such views and preferences can reasonably be ascertained;

                          (c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;

                          (d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;

                          (e) any plans proposed for the care and upbringing of the child;

                          (f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live; and

                          (g) the relationship by blood or through an adoption order between the child and each person who is a party to the application. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 24 (2).


                          Past Conduct

                          (3) The past conduct of a person is not relevant to a determination of an application under this Part in respect of custody of or access to a child unless the conduct is relevant to the ability of the person to act as a parent of a child. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 24 (3).


                          OR

                          For Divorce Matters, An application may be brought forth for custody of the children under the Divorce Act(Canada)

                          Section 16 deals with custody and the merits of an application
                          http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/D-3.4/text.html

                          Best interest test is basically the same however they have an additional clause in regards to maximizing contact of the child-children with the other parent.

                          16(10)In making an order under this section, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact.

                          Are children with married parent's any different the common law parents?

                          Some of the laws are slightly outdated in Ontario to reflect curent lifestyles

                          I will try to search for that case for you but no guarantee. Sometimes if you have a university nearby with a law dept, they may allow you access to their lawbooks for a small fee.

                          Alot of the cases that I cited are often cited jurisprudence that support Joint Custody - Parallel parenting regimes and were of high conflict, poor communication etc. Joint Custody can be granted if it is determined to be in the best interest of the child. A parent who is contesting a joint custody regime will do everything in their power not to get along with the other parent. This is a well known tactic that often fails. Courts recognize these tactics.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by logicalvelocity
                            Grace,

                            One concern I would have is since these records are available to the public, anyone in general, makes you really wonder about privacy and financial information such as Itax returns etc are attached to financial statements.

                            Is this a really good idea, considering all the identity theft that goes on nowadays. Those financial statements ask for account numbers etc.

                            Best to put some XXXXX is the account numbers for privacy purposes or block out your SIN number on itax returns and assessments.
                            Good point!!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              What is this Best interest test?

                              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