Procedural advice: Form 15 Motion to change (2 separate final orders)

[kidsRworthit]

Yes there was no abuse and therefore no involvement by authorities. It's just a lie she likes to spin about how abusive he was.
Yep: all with the intention of strategic advantage, because there's no substance re: legitimate legal position of the OP.
Sadly, this desperation is transparent to those in the know; yet others not aware of the spin, or not mature enough to understand what's really happening; may fall for the antics;(
Especially damaging (and pathetic) when kids are intentionally drawn into these OP's antics (know this to the bottom of my soul).

He won't take any action because his kids are adults now and they are fiercely protective of their mother. One day they will wise up though—we hope!

Understood, and nobody who is reasonable wants to draw the kids into parental discord "keep the kids out of the middle"
Unreasonable parents (ie. cowards) will intentionally draw children into a manufactured melee, and use the child(ren) as defensive shield, and possibly offensive weapon; which is disgusting; and certainly contrary to their best interests. Taking the "high road", while the OP and (coached kids) treat the target parent like a door mat (again, and again and again) can be compared to "death by a thousand cuts".

I now need to focus on preparing, serving and filing my Motion to Change materials. Nice interacting, and wishing your husband and yourself patience and perseverance taking the high road towards eventually realizing a relationship with his adult kids

[rockscan]

Yes there was no abuse and therefore no involvement by authorities. It's just a lie she likes to spin about how abusive he was. He won't take any action because his kids are adults now and they are fiercely protective of their mother. One day they will wise up though—we hope!

[kidsRworthit]

Well there was also a moment during their motion where his ex claimed he physically abused the kids and his lawyer had to roll back and keep him in his chair by putting his hand on his leg. Thankfully the judge told her to move along as he wasn't entertaining it.

Eesh: and this possibly was the action being provoked by design

Even more malicious: unfortunately involves the real situation(s) where the high-conflict source or initiator parent; undermines the target parent's relationship with the child(ren), by unwarranted involvement of the Children's Aid Society and Police.

Not only are such cases contrary to the childrens' best interests (and possibly tantamount to child abuse), it is an abuse of scarce resources.
Sadly, the dis-incentive or consequences to the parent "gaming the system" are not equivalent to the harm inflicted.

Some judges do recognize: that high-conflict parents often don't get what they want through Family Court, so they involve the Criminal Justice system by manufacturing charges in an attempt to gain temporary (and ideally long-term) custody of the child(ren).

Our legal system should instill consequences commensurate to the wrong-doing for any parent who feels it appropriate to "game the system".

Aside: "mischief" may be the charge levied against high-conflict parents who take unreasonable actions.

This process requires Police involvement to lay the mischief charge against the source or initiator parent.
Most people are busy: interacting positively with their children, dealing with work, possibly dealing with their legal issues, and living life.
Most people simply don't have the required time and energy to pursue Police involvement towards a charge of mischief, against an unreasonable OP (further ratchets up drama).
The process involves the Police having the pre-requisite amount of "evidence" required to lay the charge of mischief...

[rockscan]

Well there was also a moment during their motion where his ex claimed he physically abused the kids and his lawyer had to roll back and keep him in his chair by putting his hand on his leg. Thankfully the judge told her to move along as he wasn't entertaining it.

[kidsRworthit]

My husband is too emotional to self rep. His lawyer was really reasonable on charging for things and we kept the bill down by doing a lot of work ourselves.

Nicely done!
Yeah, although it may prove difficult at times keeping emotions removed in court appearances; particularly when the OP is blatantly making a mis-representation(s)...
Focus and calmness are required!

In the end, if your husband feels value for performance is realized (for legal services rendered), and you're able to keep costs down by doing alot of work yourselves = GREAT.

[rockscan]

My husband is too emotional to self rep. His lawyer was really reasonable on charging for things and we kept the bill down by doing a lot of work ourselves.

[kidsRworthit]

Instead of DRO for cases they need to have a case manager or something. When you have an unreasonable party things don't get settled and it takes up too much time, resources and money.
Agreed. An unreasonable litigant often feels a sense of entitlement = only complies with court orders when they are aligned with their personal agenda.
This behaviour often proves to be cost and time inefficient, ratchets up drama and tension; is certainly contrary to the childrens' and societies' best interests.
As others' have identified: these negative actions need to be met with financial dis-incentives.

In my personal experience: a contempt finding and subsequent $5 K cost order against the OP... was met with delay, then the OP provided me a cheque (for $5 K) through counsel in the presence of the judge, in order to have their motion heard. Three days later, that $5 K cost order cheque was returned by my financial institution NSF (cheque bounced).
Although the judge was not impressed, nothing was done to address this unreasonable behvaviour (identified to the judge)

My husband spent $30,000 on his original agreement which his ex did not follow. Then she interpreted the agreement how she wanted for school and life insurance. That resulted in another $15,000 to reach an agreement which was in line with his first response and subsequent offer.
Yikes!

She also had to pay costs to him of $3,000. Another poster here had three judges through the process agree with him and then their trial judge had little understanding of the case law that resulted in a ridiculous order.
I started self-repping in 2015 due to diminishing resources and very minimal tangible results.
I figured, with a high-conflict OP = I see no end in sight to this consistent pattern of unreasonableness, and feel I can do the lawyer's job, and pay myself and my kids

If the judges had just been able to make decisions in the middle it would have been settled. Plus there are others on here who have had similar situations.
Agreed.

There needs to be a management aspect that follows up on disclosure, discussions, settlement offers etc. AND financial punishments for those who don't comply or cooperate!

Agreed.
Reasonable people comply with court orders, the spirit of court endorsements, act relatively fairly with the OP), and have the "children's best interests" in mind.

Unreasonable people: don't take the courts seriously, feel "it's a game", and only take actions which are aligned to their personal agenda.
In short: unreasonable people make negative parenting and post-marriage decisions due to a lack of serious financial consequences... (because in their mind: they can "get away with it...")

[rockscan]

Aside: like more than one on this forum, I have burned through 10's of thousands of $; which should have gone directly to the kids. (two family lawyers, two court ordered psychologists, two custody evaluators...)
C'est la vie = such is the "cross I bear" of interactions with a court identified high conflict OP...

Instead of DRO for cases they need to have a case manager or something. When you have an unreasonable party things don't get settled and it takes up too much time, resources and money. My husband spent $30,000 on his original agreement which his ex did not follow. Then she interpreted the agreement how she wanted for school and life insurance. That resulted in another $15,000 to reach an agreement which was in line with his first response and subsequent offer. She also had to pay costs to him of $3,000. Another poster here had three judges through the process agree with him and then their trial judge had little understanding of the case law that resulted in a ridiculous order. If the judges had just been able to make decisions in the middle it would have been settled. Plus there are others on here who have had similar situations. There needs to be a management aspect that follows up on disclosure, discussions, settlement offers etc. AND financial punishments for those who don't comply or cooperate!

[kidsRworthit]

Ive seen the farden factors. I also note that they tend to be used in final orders as the reasons behind a judges decision. My husband's lawyer never once mentioned them or put them in the documents. They were simple and to the point.

Understood, and appreciate your insight ROCKSCAN.

In my procedural initiatives to address Child Support a. overpayment, and b. entitlement:
I feel well written materials: Form 15 Motion to Change & Factum (long motion) are worth the time and energy;
as they carry the potential to be taken seriously by a judge and ideally decisions and actions following...

Aside: like more than one on this forum, I have burned through 10's of thousands of $; which should have gone directly to the kids. (two family lawyers, two court ordered psychologists, two custody evaluators...)
C'est la vie = such is the "cross I bear" of interactions with a court identified high conflict OP...

[rockscan]

Ive seen the farden factors. I also note that they tend to be used in final orders as the reasons behind a judges decision. My husband's lawyer never once mentioned them or put them in the documents. They were simple and to the point.

[kidsRworthit]

The judge didn't mention the farden factors at all. He simply said kid wasn't in school so support isn't paid.
Nice (and clean)

When it came to the cost for kid to go away he noted that dad's obligation is to pay for a school close to home, kids choice means kid pays more.
Reasonable (and fair)

They still aren't speaking to him. It's been two years with the older one (I spoke to that one last year during a medical emergency and they never called back to see how their dad was doing)
and eight with kid two. That one has some serious entitlement issues and believes both of us are out to ruin his ex.
Yikes: hatred, empathy, entitlement, and many other traits/emotions: are learned and reinforced (or not) directly and particularly from parental figures.
Twice, I sought relief in the form of Psychologist intervention (first between Psychologist and myself, then secondly 4 years later with child and myself); and twice it was court ordered!

I can vividly recall court ordered Psychologist number 2 informing me (about 8 yrs. ago): my Ex and her partner: speak openly and negatively about me in the presence of the children at the OP's home
Nice toxic environment in which to poison impressionable childrens' minds

There are layers to the petty and immature behaviour. It is terrible for sure but when they were in his life they constantly abused him as they were told to punish him.
Ouch, poisonous effect of PA (Parental Alienation)
Kids were likely encouraged to feel they had to choose a parent; and that choice was their mother.
(it's not uncommon for the chosen parent to manipulate their child/ren against the target parent)
Then all actions of an impressionable child are to protect their "chosen" parent (against the target parent)

It felt like he was constantly fighting them on everything including simply responding to a text message!
Totally understand this, as I lived many years in this dark pit (which went even deeper = another story...

I hate to say it but he is better off without that bs but I know he loves and misses them.
You're being real.
The bond between a parent and child/ren is lifelong; though any relationship needs to be two way in order to be healthy and maintain longevity.

I'm hopeful once they leave their mother's house they grow up but until then they believe poor mom and evil dad.

Several wise people (close to me, I know, love and respect) have said just that and
This will change when the kids "grow a brain" (frontal brain lobe develops, become more mature, see through this charade...)


Below is summary of Farden Factors (also review last bullet point)
The OP of child 2 has child taking one online uni course at UOttawa, while playing Junior A ice hockey in NS full-time.
OP claims it is my obligation to continue paying CS, as child 2 is registered at UOttawa (see first bullet point below)

The Divorce Act also outlines that a parent may be obligated to continue paying child support for a child that “is the age of majority or over and under their charge but unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to withdraw from their charge or to obtain the necessities of life.”

The factors often applied to this question are from a Supreme Court of British Columbia case, Farden v. Farden, and include:

• whether the child is in fact enrolled in a course of studies and whether it is a full-time or part-time course of studies;
• whether or not the child has applied for, or is eligible for, student loans or other financial assistance;
• the career plans of the child, i.e., whether the child has some reasonable and appropriate plan or is simply going to college because there is nothing better to do;
• the ability of the child to contribute to his own support through part-time employment;
• the age of the child;
• the child’s past academic performance, whether the child is demonstrating success in the chosen course of studies;
• what plans the parents made for the education of their children particularly where those plans were made during cohabitation; and
• at least in the case of a mature child who has reached the age of majority, whether or not the child has unilaterally terminated their relationship from the parent from whom support is sought.

[rockscan]

The judge didn't mention the farden factors at all. He simply said kid wasn't in school so support isn't paid. When it came to the cost for kid to go away he noted that dad's obligation is to pay for a school close to home, kids choice means kid pays more.

They still aren't speaking to him. It's been two years with the older one (I spoke to that one last year during a medical emergency and they never called back to see how their dad was doing) and eight with kid two. That one has some serious entitlement issues and believes both of us are out to ruin his ex. There are layers to the petty and immature behaviour. It is terrible for sure but when they were in his life they constantly abused him as they were told to punish him. It felt like he was constantly fighting them on everything including simply responding to a text message! I hate to say it but he is better off without that bs but I know he loves and misses them. I'm hopeful once they leave their mother's house they grow up but until then they believe poor mom and evil dad.

[kidsRworthit]

Meh, my husband's ex's offer was ridiculous. Their agreement outlined the same points you listed earlier.
Yikes! sorry to learn...
Despite the existence of an agreement; it's not uncommon for narcissistic personalities to "forget" or blatantly disregard that to which they previously agreed to in writing...
Some characters patently disregard clear and unequivocal language specified in court orders; and some despite a finding of contempt; carry on with this shenanigan behaviour

Both kids took time off before university, both chose to go away (adding at least $15,000 per year to the costs), both were taking programs that would require a second degree to get work
Judge would ideally acknowledge signed agreement as baseline, then additionally apply Farden factors (CS) in an effort to diffuse one sided "position" of his ex...

and both kids refused to speak to him.
Hopefully, his kids are now speaking to him...
Been there (and worse), and I've thankfully reunited with mine. [slow and negative process to have a (second) court ordered Psychologist mend the fence (damaged intentionally by the OP]

The offer he received was to basically have kids pay nothing towards the costs and have cs go to age 25 and have a second degree paid for in addition to lots of other extras.
Wow - unreasonable, and unfair. One parent is not an ATM with unlimited resources...

She got none of it.

Justice seems to have been realized.
Though in the process, damage has naturally been incurred. [lost financial, emotional resources, ratcheted up tension, kids potentially further "poisoned" by high conflict parent (who doesn't comply with spirit of endorsement(s), orders and agreement(s)]


Quote resonates with me: nobody "wins" in Family Court; one side just loses less...

[rockscan]

Meh, my husband's ex's offer was ridiculous. Their agreement outlined the same points you listed earlier. Both kids took time off before university, both chose to go away (adding at least $15,000 per year to the costs), both were taking programs that would require a second degree to get work and both kids refused to speak to him. The offer he received was to basically have kids pay nothing towards the costs and have cs go to age 25 and have a second degree paid for in addition to lots of other extras. She got none of it.

[kidsRworthit]

Doesn't matter. Kids aren't entitled to support.
Agreed. OP feels parents maintain an obligation to support kids, irrespective of their age.
Family Court has continuously proven otherwise through case law...

By the time everything is heard kid 1 will probably be done. At this point you want to make sure you aren't getting into a situation where you have paid her money you will never get back.
Agreed on first issue.
Presently, due to overpayment of CS, I have clarified via detailed spreadsheet; my intention is to include this as Exhibit in Motion, seeking:
Overpayment of $xxxx.xx to be identified in form of credit towards Payor of FRO file # 12345,

In response to your comments in the quote box—your ex would need to file a new order for cs entitlement for kid 2 should he not do well in hockey. As for kid 1, again it would be an argument for entitlement.
Agreed

Regardless, file the paperwork rather than worry about all the arguments. You can deal with that with the judge.

Agreed - received conflicting approaches/guidance (in person and via email) from FLIC

Appreciate your insight ROCKSCAN!