Announcement

**NotSoNiceEx** · 06-24-2010, 09:34 AM

You must respond if you want the judge to hear your side, you should have the forms to respond in your package he served you. You will have a date in which you need to respond by and file with the court. You can and should reject his offer, it is unreasonable. If he owes over 17000 in arrears 2000 does not cut it. Why is he asking to now pay 120, is that foe repayment of arrears or is it the new amount of cs he wants to pay because of a material change such as job loss?

**HammerDad** · 06-24-2010, 09:36 AM

Why is he only getting two saturday's a month for a full day (11:30am to 4:30pm)? Standard would be pretty much what he is requesting for access, together with every other long weekend, 1/2 of christmas and every other march break.

As for child support it is non-negotiable as it is mandated by law to be the guideline amount. If he is paying more/less then he is supposed to according to his last tax return, then it should be lowered/raised to the correct amount. The arrears amount I have no idea about as I don't know if you have a court order already providing for a specified c/s amount. If you have no agreement or court order, then I doubt you would get any arrears, but again with the limited information provided it is hard to say anything.

**Mess** · 06-24-2010, 09:41 AM

You are allowed to not reply if that is what you choose.

Try to separate the issues of access and support payments in your mind. I know it's hard. The courts will treat those completely separately, he should have access whether or not he is in arrears.

The courts love it if you can settle at least some issues yourselves, it also makes you look reasonable and the judge will be more open to what you are saying. So if you are ok with this access request, consider responding that you agree with some issues but not others, and you would agree in principal to the access (or a variation that you suggest) but not to the financial offer.

Without knowing your financial detail, it's hard to comment. Is the $500 per month the Table amount? (Child Support Guidelines Tables) His offer doesn't sound remotely reasonable and you would not be hurting yourself if you reject the financial offer. His offer for access is reasonable, so if a court decision awarded him the access but not the support decision, the court costs could be split between you.

So it is wiser to split the issues and agree with the ones you can live with, at least in principal (not yet in writing, you can change your mind later, put "Without Prejudice" at the top of every response letter.)

Regarding the arrears, can you show that the $17000 has caused yuu and your child hardship? Have you had to do without, or cut back on clothing or the child's recreation? Have you gone into debt? Anything you can show about this strengthens your case to receive full arrears.

**c_najo** · 06-24-2010, 10:08 AM

Thank you for your prompt reply. Just answer some of your questions, yes the child support is the table amount. I do have a court order for him to pay that amount. In regards to the access. It was an extremely abusive marriage and he also has uttered death threats to both the child and myself. He had no access for 2 years, than 1 hours supervised for a few years and now it has moved slowly to half a day in the community. I am not willing to give overnight. I am affraid mostly of the emotional and psycological abuse he will inflict. Therefore, it is the access I am more concerned about and I need to try and convince the court that he should not get overnight access.

**representingself** · 06-24-2010, 12:01 PM

What difference would overnight access make? As it stands he has unsupervised access...

Is he more of a danger to the child in the evening vs. the afternoon?

**c_najo** · 06-24-2010, 12:18 PM

You don't think having her for 48 hours opposed to 5 hours would make a difference in how much of an influence he has on her life? To me that is a BIG difference!

**Mess** · 06-24-2010, 12:44 PM

It doesn't matter what we think. Questions like that are good for you to think about, you have to have logical answers prepared.

What exactly is the difference between 5 hours and 48? How much "influence" will that be? What is his behaviour like with her? You have to show these things, not just assume everyone will understand and agree with what you are thinking.

**HammerDad** · 06-24-2010, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Mess View Post

It doesn't matter what we think. Questions like that are good for you to think about, you have to have logical answers prepared.

What exactly is the difference between 5 hours and 48? How much "influence" will that be? What is his behaviour like with her? You have to show these things, not just assume everyone will understand and agree with what you are thinking.

Agreed.

Unless you have some documented proof that he is a danger to the child (like those death threats were via email) it would turn into your word against his and a court will have to make a determination about credibility and the best interests of the child.

Personally, I don't see how (having the child ~12.9% of a month compared to your 87%) that he would be able to be that big of an influence on the child. But what he is requesting is pretty much standard. If you don't agree with it you will need to provide the courts with valid reasoning/explanation of why you disagree and provide proof to back up your position.

**representingself** · 06-24-2010, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by c_najo View Post

You don't think having her for 48 hours opposed to 5 hours would make a difference in how much of an influence he has on her life? To me that is a BIG difference!

He will have the child for 96 hours a month, you will have the child for the remaining 624... I'd bet that you would use your time to the benefit of the child and that your influence on her would greatly outweigh his...

That being said, he is her father, and as such he SHOULD have an influence in her life... and a "big" one at that.

My intention was to question your reasoning.... if the child is considered by the courts (and yourself), as being physically safe with her father for ANY unsupervised access, why should you/they restrict him from having the standard access schedule as outlined in his Offer?

**blinkandimgone** · 06-24-2010, 05:52 PM

I totally disagree with the amount of timehaving an effect on the kid and that any damage can't be done in such a short amount of time - 96 hours/month or 12.9%, however you want to look at it.

It takes VERY little time and effort to hurt/damage/scar a child whether that's physically or emotionally. Verbal abuse can be just as damaging to a child as physical abuse and sometimes those scars never heal.

He currently has half a day in the community with the child so he still isn't alone with the child. Adults tend to be far better behaved and more aware of their behaviour when they know they're being watched or could be seen or heard doing/saying something they shouldn't be.

**representingself** · 06-24-2010, 06:50 PM

Blink....

Now I am making assumptions here (as we all do), but common sense tells me that if he intended on harming the child emotionally, he would be doing so already, not asking for additional access time.

She has already stated that it was an abusive marriage, not that he abused the child. She also said that he uttered death threats.... which sounds serious, but she did not clarify when said threats occured...

She did however say that "he had no access for 2 years, than 1 hours supervised for a few years and now it has moved slowly to half a day in the community". The child is not a toddler. She is at least 5 years old, and as such, she has a voice....

In addition, it can take YEARS to alter a visitation schedule... so it is possible that said threats and such occured quite some time ago... and the man no longer poses a threat.

**blinkandimgone** · 06-24-2010, 07:03 PM

He uttered death threats against the child - does it honestly really matter WHEN they were made?

I just can't stand to see children handed over to people who are known to be abusive for the simple fact that they happen to be one of the parents. There are far too many instances where children have been abused or killed in just these circumstances because the court said they had a right to have their child.

There's a lot more to the story that we don't see, ie: has he been to therapy, anger management, has an assessment been done *recently*, has there been ANY incidents with the child etc. IMHO, it's in the best interests of the child to be over-protected than under.

**representingself** · 06-24-2010, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post

He uttered death threats against the child - does it honestly really matter WHEN they were made?

Sure it matters..... if it happened 5 years ago, during a period of emotional/mental distress due to marital breakdown, and he has not done, nor said anything of the sort since... then should he still be considered a danger to the child?

He has been granted unsupervised access....

Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post

There's a lot more to the story that we don't see,

There always is....

**standing on the sidelines** · 06-25-2010, 06:41 AM

would it not be common sense to keep increasing access as long as he is not doing anything wrong??

As for the money issue he has to pay what he owes.

by the way 11:30am till 4:30 pm is no where near a full day.

Announcement

An Offer to Settle...help!

An Offer to Settle...help!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment