50/50 Equal Parenting: The Debate

[Tayken]

I didnt find the statements to be contradictory taken apart in the sense of punishment for a bad behaviour. LF32s ex was proven to be reasonable when she was "punished" for her behaviour. If she had continued to withhold and prevent access and lie and make false allegations then no they couldn't co-parent and they were not a good role model. And in that case he could have continued to say "mommy loves you very much and we are working together to make sure you are happy" or something along those lines.

The behaviour of the other parent in LF32's matter speaks more to trying to establish a false status quo more than anything really. It is unfortunate that these "common as teeth" patterns of bad legal behaviour persist. Courts need to do more to nip these at the start. It is happening way more these days as we saw in:

Coe v. Tope, 2014 ONSC 4002 (CanLII)
Date: 2014-07-03
Docket: 2839/14
Citation: Coe v. Tope, 2014 ONSC 4002 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/t/g7w9n

36. One final comment:

37. I hope I didn’t offend the parties with my Breaking Bad Parents analogy. They’re not bad parents. Yet.

38. Mainly, I was trying to give both parties a sobering warning: Stop!

39. Stop being nasty.

40. Stop jockeying for position.

41. Stop playing hardball.

42. Stop acting like you hate your ex more than you love your children.

43. It didn’t have to be this way. These parties had a year between separation in July 2013 and the sale of the house in June 2014 to work out a comprehensive, sensitive parenting plan. They could have spent a lot less money on parenting professionals than they’re spending on lawyers. They could have negotiated a civilized final agreement by now. There was no need for crisis and brinksmanship.

44. Now that things have stabilized (albeit, by court order) both parties have a chance to rethink their strategies and start over.

45. They can waste time, money and energy on more case conferences, motions, settlement conferences, trial management conferences, questioning, and a long trial.

46. Or, they can declare a truce; focus on their children; call in some therapeutic help (like social workers or mediators); make a few compromises; work out a plan everyone can live with – and take the kids on annual vacations to Disney World with the money they save.

More education has to be done with Lawyers about this all. Some judges are providing it in case law but, not many lawyers keep current on case law it seems... Especially the very very sneaky ones.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[rockscan]

That is what I am trying to do. It's difficult though. I tell myself a judge will see it as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A common phrase I use with my partner is this: you cannot control the behaviour of others, you can only control your reaction.

[LovingFather32]

Angie, we got off on the wrong foot. I hope you know we're just trying to a)understand ; b)give sound advice.

What other posters and I are saying is:

[QUOTE]

but your ex is good enough for 35% access right?! Get out of the middle of his relationship with the children and their father, they own that relationship independently of you. You had the choice when you conceived your children with him, beyond that you have no business interfering with a parent wanting their children 50/50. It's unkind and damaging to your children.

and

If your ex is psychologically abusing and manipulating your children then you are a sorry excuse for a mother to even allow them to spend 35% of the time with him. You should have fought for not only primary custody but supervised visits.

We just don't get it .. that's all.

How is he good enough for 35% access but not equal parenting? If he's a monster with the children and they're better off without him you wouldn't have agreed to so much access already.

#2: You're panicking over anticipated false allegations for no reason. As many posters agree here, the onus is on him to PROVE his allegations. Just as you have to of you're alleging anything.

The fact that you're "very" worried (to the point of recording your child) kind of tells us he actually may have something with teeth. By the way, parents can get kids to say anything on tape). Very dirty tactic.

Listen to Rockscan. Be calm and give a blanket statement that they are false. That's it. He wants to paint you as a drama queen...don't give it to him in a gift basket.

[Ange71727]

[QUOTE=LovingFather32;216013]Angie, we got off on the wrong foot. I hope you know we're just trying to a)understand ; b)give sound advice.

What other posters and I are saying is:

and


We just don't get it .. that's all.

How is he good enough for 35% access but not equal parenting? If he's a monster with the children and they're better off without him you wouldn't have agreed to so much access already.

#2: You're panicking over anticipated false allegations for no reason. As many posters agree here, the onus is on him to PROVE his allegations. Just as you have to of you're alleging anything.

The fact that you're "very" worried (to the point of recording your child) kind of tells us he actually may have something with teeth. By the way, parents can get kids to say anything on tape). Very dirty tactic.

Listen to Rockscan. Be calm and give a blanket statement that they are false. That's it. He wants to paint you as a drama queen...don't give it to him in a gift basket.

He doesn't have anything on me. It just disturbs me, as a moral person who wouldn't do these things, to see my name written down as having participated in or said things that are not true. I do have proof that some of them occurred, not all. I am hoping that the ones I am able to prove false will ruin his credibility.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tayken]

He doesn't have anything on me. It just disturbs me, as a moral person who wouldn't do these things, to see my name written down as having participated in or said things that are not true. I do have proof that some of them occurred, not all. I am hoping that the ones I am able to prove false will ruin his credibility.

Courts make determinations on LAWS and not MORALS. You need to separate the two. Courts are there to ensure that the rule of law is not only upheld but applied to all, even if that law may conflict with your popular concepts of morality.

[LovingFather32]

Just to add to what Tayken mentioned, it's too bad dad has to think outside the box and resort to any of that stuff just to see his children a little bit more.

His ability to parent is in tact as per 24(4) of the CLRA.

Angie, you say yourself:

He isn't abusing them. He isn't hurting them per se. I do think he loves them. I just don't want to lose the arrangement I have.

You also point out that:

I HAVE considered a reduction in custody. I just think that less time with them would be detrimental to my kids. I would have to explain why daddy is getting less time now because they would need justification at their ages.

1. So the kids would HATE to lose time with him? That's "very" telling. Time with their dad is "Detrimental" to them actually (your words). So one could only assume that a bit more time would be great!

2. But you also claim he's harming them (by your definition) .. not the CLRA's.
So why allow access at all if there's harm?

(Ohhhh..I want to be a lawyer in my next life. 2 great trial bits during questioning ^^^)

Listen, there's no abuse, a stable home with a g/f who treats your kids good. A dad who's trying anything to get his kids on an equal basis. (Which in the end is only a few more days/year). I still don't get the big fight, but whatever.

You're case is a great source for this thread.

[trinton]

Let me tell you something, I was being denied access for quite some time and the mom would only agree to supervised access since I had been out of my child's life for some time. When the supervised access finally began (she was screwing around with that process and the enforcement of that order for an additional 9 months) the child was very happy to see me. The child would tell me that she loved me and that she wanted to see me every day.

You know what the judge said? This is a situation now that child is with mom and thinks dad is bad. Then child see's dad and thinks "daddy is not bad. daddy is good. I love dad."

The mom continued to make unfounded allegations and expressed fears of me breaking my child's arms when I asked for unsupervised access and you know what the judge told her after 6 months of positive supervised access visits?

That is not going to happen. You have chosen this man as the father of your child, he has done everything you have asked of him, he is going to be getting access. You have anxieties... this matter is going to trial.

Just thought I through that out there. If you continue to make allegations you can't proof and express fears, but agree to him having 35% access, They will think you have a personality disorder which will classify you as an unfit parent.

PS. You having all these crazy thoughts about him hurting your child's emotional well being when you have agreed to him to have 35% access is unreasonable. If you have those fears then he shouldn't have anything more than supervised access. And keep in mind supervised access is only temporary, generally the access parent will go through counselling and then will be given regular access. We as a modern society believe in re habitation. People go to jail and come out go to school, become educated, and really good citizens. People do drugs, become addicted, go-to rehab, come out and start volunteering. They get jobs and have families.

You haven't answered my question. Why do you agree to him having 35% but not 50%. How did you come up with that precise number of 35% ? I ask because it is only 5% from 40% access.

I have a new question. Are you afraid that the ROFR will give him that extra 5% that you are trying to withold?

I trust that you will answer my questions. I trust that you have nothing to hide from us.

[LovingFather32]

You having all these crazy thoughts about him hurting your child's emotional well being when you have agreed to him to have 35% access is unreasonable.

Not just unreasonable. Simply doesn't make sense. Judge will see this inconsistency right away.

You haven't answered my question. Why do you agree to him having 35% but not 50%. How did you come up with that precise number of 35% ? I ask because it is only 5% from 40% access.

Exactly. She also states that she is a well-educated individual. So I wonder if the 40% threshold was met if that meant she would have to pay him CS. That's why shes starting threads about hours being calculated, etc. Food for thought.

[Tayken]

Exactly. She also states that she is a well-educated individual. So I wonder if the 40% threshold was met if that meant she would have to pay him CS. That's why shes starting threads about hours being calculated, etc. Food for thought.

Generally off-set child support is not worth fighting over. Generally the parents make similar incomes and the differences are <1000 a month.

Remember 40% doesn't guarantee that offset is automagically calculated. There are a number of parents who pay full table on 50-50 residential schedules.

[LovingFather32]

Generally off-set child support is not worth fighting over. Generally the parents make similar incomes and the differences are <1000 a month.

Remember 40% doesn't guarantee that offset is automagically calculated. There are a number of parents who pay full table on 50-50 residential schedules.

Yea I agree. I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning for this poster to not allow for an equal relationship. Dad loves his kids ; no history or pattern of abuse ; already at 35% access (so no huge routine changes for an extra day or 2/year) ; Kids would hate to lose time with him (stated by Angie) .. so adding time should have a positive effect ... just so many weird things. Now she states that there's harm being done, but was okay for 8 years at 35%.

For me it is the exact truism you wrote about in your abuse thread. She has a disgusting image of her ex and minimizes any good qualities he may have, while over amplifying the negatives and relationship stuff. Based on her posts, a 50/50 regime should be instituted on a graduated schedule. There's no reason for that not to happen.

[stripes]

Here's something, just food for thought:

Custody is not black and white: either Parent is a terrible parent and should get zero access, or Parent is a good parent and should get 50%. Lots of parents fall somewhere in between - they can't or don't want to cope with all the demands of equal parenting, but they don't totally suck either. Holding the line at 35% (or 20% or whatever) could be a reasonable compromise, depending on the situation. It's certainly possible for someone to be a good-enough parent at less-than-50%, but a not-so-good-enough parent when it comes to taking equal responsibility. I don't know if this is the case with the OP, but it might be.

(Also, not everything is about the magic 40% threshold. Unless there's a major income discrepancy between Mom and Dad, switching to offset might not have much impact on either household's finances).

[LovingFather32]

Here's something, just food for thought:

Custody is not black and white: either Parent is a terrible parent and should get zero access, or Parent is a good parent and should get 50%. Lots of parents fall somewhere in between - they can't or don't want to cope with all the demands of equal parenting, but they don't totally suck either. Holding the line at 35% (or 20% or whatever) could be a reasonable compromise, depending on the situation. It's certainly possible for someone to be a good-enough parent at less-than-50%, but a not-so-good-enough parent when it comes to taking equal responsibility. I don't know if this is the case with the OP, but it might be.

(Also, not everything is about the magic 40% threshold. Unless there's a major income discrepancy between Mom and Dad, switching to offset might not have much impact on either household's finances).

Very true Stripes. It's always difficult without hearing both sides and weighing all the facts and evidence.

I believe that this particular parent should be given the opportunity to prove himself as a 50/50 parent after being 35% for 8 years. He may be worse at 50% .. or he may be better. The kids lives may also improve. But who knows unless it's actually tried. Why deny the opportunity?

The truth is that Angie will probably win with status quo. I'm smart enough to realize that. It just irks me that she won't give the guy a chance to spend a bit more time with his kids when he seems to be a good candidate to do so (despite the normal separation relationship he said/she said stuff that most of us go through).

She may be pleasantly surprised .. just as my ex and I are with a 50/50 regime.

[rockscan]

Yea I agree. I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning for this poster to not allow for an equal relationship. Dad loves his kids ; no history or pattern of abuse ; already at 35% access (so no huge routine changes for an extra day or 2/year) ; Kids would hate to lose time with him (stated by Angie) .. so adding time should have a positive effect ... just so many weird things. Now she states that there's harm being done, but was okay for 8 years at 35%.

For me it is the exact truism you wrote about in your abuse thread. She has a disgusting image of her ex and minimizes any good qualities he may have, while over amplifying the negatives and relationship stuff. Based on her posts, a 50/50 regime should be instituted on a graduated schedule. There's no reason for that not to happen.

I think a lot of what Angie said in the other thread got confused and mixed up. Her ex wants to increase custody to reduce his cs payments. I have a feeling he is following misguided ideas that his arrears get wiped out and he doesnt have to update. Or he threatens to go to court for increased time and hopes she agrees to wipe out arrears. Until he actually files paperwork its not really known.

She has stated though that the schedule works for her and also mentioned a whole bunch of other irrelevant factors.

Setting aside both of those thoughts (dads malicious intentions and moms desire to stick with what works) it looks like 50/50 could work if both parties were reasonable and able to provide what is necessary for the kids' well being.

Truly we will never know unless dad puts forward what he wants and what his parenting plan is and if mom agrees to what works for the kids.

LF32, you forget you had a very child focused parenting plan, had enrolled your kid in activities and was demonstrating your ability to provide much more structure and activities than your ex. Your case was very different in that you were prepared with options and were organized. I think in many 50/50 cases this is the norm--two parents who work together on their kids' best interests.

For parents who are trying to get back at the other parent, prove the other parent isnt fit, reduce income, and in some way hurt or harm the other parent, 50/50 is useless because it just leads to dispute.

Again, we go back to the test of reasonability. Reasonable parents stay out of court. And reasonability applies to both parties. The judge will ask "and what are you doing in return" when a parent pulls the he/she wont do X.

[Beachnana]

It would be very difficult to have 50/50 if parents cannot get along or have very different ideas of raising a child. I said very difficult but not impossible as I am sure lots do it. But simple,things like haircuts, piecerce ears or not, dating, bed times, homework.

If parents do not get along the. Does,the child not suffer from living in the middle of their conflict and having too very different homelifes to contend with?

Note: I am not saying it not a good idea for 50/50 I was wondering if any parents out there with high conflict and different parenting styles have some insight?

[stripes]

I wouldn't say my parenting setup is "high conflict" (any more), but I would say I've learned to pick my battles in order to reduce tensions with ex over 50/50. He does things with Kid that I don't approve of (e.g. we had different ideas about what age is appropriate for a bikini bathing suit, or whether young children should get to watch R-rated movies and TV shows), and I'm sure I've done things he didn't approve of but didn't raise as a big issue. I've saved "I will not allow ...." for really major things.

The beauty of 50/50 is that you have your child for half the time - so while they're being exposed to things you don't like at the other parent's home, they also have your home as a model for the other 50%. Eventually, kids figure out the difference between the two homes. If necessary, you can explain the difference between the two households in a way that doesn't blame the other parent (e.g. "I don't want you watching Dexter because I think that exposure to a lot of violence isn't good for kids' brains. Other people like your dad may have a different opinion. At my place we're going to follow my opinion. When you're an adult, you can have your own opinion".