Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defacto custody and relocation

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by dadtotheend View Post
    Do you think you're the first pompous SOB to come around here with that tired old I'm the best because because I'm the best because I'm the best because I'm Mom dogma?

    That's why.

    The majority disagree with you because we all took time to seek counsel and advice and actually consider it beyond our own twisted self-interest. We went above and beyond our own selfish needs and looked to consider the childnen's best interest instead of just rationalizing an outcome that aligns with our own interests.

    And we have seen many people like you who have come and gone here in the last few years that are just like you ------> unable to see beyond their own noses. And many of us (women included) are sick and tired of the likes of you.

    That's why.
    LOL well that's a lot of hot air but the general impression I'm getting from this as well as the previous posts of yours is that there is something about an argumentative woman which sets off a bunch of triggers for you and sends you into a fit of verbal abuse and misogyny.

    What it is and why - that I don't know.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by dadtotheend View Post
      Wrong answer.

      I called you an idiot because you assumed that blink must be a man since (s)he didn't fall into step with your womanly views.

      Keep being entertained drama queen. It's a good look for you.
      Questions:

      1. Why did you feel compelled to patronize Blink? Did you think she wasn't capable enough to prove her own point?

      2. Why did you choose to 'avenge' one female by making degrading, misogynistic comments about another? Have you heard of the Madonna-Whore dichotomy?

      PS - I'm not swearing here, it's a term. I have a feeling that you may be compelled to have a wordplay on the word 'Whore' as a means of self-expression. Nothing wrong with that, so go ahead.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by HammerDad View Post

        Ultimately, you don't have the right to move the children without your ex's permission or a court order. You are not guaranteed to win in court either as you would be temporarily moving to an unfamiliar place. Meaning you would uproot the kids for a 1-2 years to some obscur location without family other then yourself, impede your ex's ability to exercise his parenting time etc. If I were your ex, I would argue that it isn't in the kids best interests to be removed from their familiar surroundings for what is a temporary situation. It would create an unnecessary disruption in their lives with having to change schools/friends multiple times in a short period of time and that the best for them is where they are familiar.
        I believe this paragraph relates to the internship move, right? I don't want to take them with me for the reasons you just stated - far away, unfamiliar, temporary. Leaving them with the fathers means that they lose their primary residence, their school, their neighborhood, and they will get temporarily separated from each other and from me (who is the primary caregiver). So it's between a rock and a hard place for them. Hence, my option of choice right now is to have a lawyer and a councellor to explain what I have just said in a form of a document, and inquire about an exemption from the lottery.

        If this doesn't work, the dads and I may have to agree on a specific clause prohibiting me to move away, so that the status quo could be maintained.

        Comment


        • #79
          You may be able to relocate with the kids if:

          1. your ex doesn't fight it;
          2. you and your ex work out an agreement which provides some alternative parenting time schedule that provides you ex with substantially similar parenting time that he is entitled to now; or
          3. you prove to the courts that any such move is in the children's best interests.

          My agreement provides that my ex cannot move 100km away from me without my previous consent. If I refuse to agree, she needs to drag me to court. Chances of me agreeing should she want to move are slim unless she compensates me generously with extra parenting time.

          Things you have to consider that you probably haven't:

          1. depending on location, how is dad supposed to exercise his parenting time with the children?

          2. how are you going to facilitate his parenting time?

          3. Does your move create an unreasonable burden on your ex to exercise his parenting time? ie would the distance make it impossible for him to see the kids regularly and/or would the cost be such a burden financially that he would not be able to see the children regularly.

          4. What are you willing to sacrifice in order to get his consent to move? The amount you would be required to sacrifice would have to be at a minimum equal to his lost time or costs. So, if he can't get EOW weekend any more, he gets all of summer, march break and 1/2 of christmas. If it will costs $$$ in gas or transportation costs to facilitate his parenting time, will you be willing to absorb those costs as you are the reason they exist. Or, alternatively, if the costs are nearly equal to the amount he pays in CS, would you be willing to wave CS to offset any costs associate with his parenting time.
          This is excellent, just what I needed.

          All 3 are possible in this situation, #2 is the most probable. We have been able to peacefully mediate things for years now so I don't see why all of a sudden we'll end up in court.

          I'm thinking that - and this is based on my personal circumstances the way I know them - that if I am to move in order to get a job, the fathers will not fight it as long as we all agree on reasonable access. They have been content with me being the primary caregiver so far, so it's unlikely they would want it changed. Let's say I get a job in 3 years that's a 5 hr drive away from our current residence. My offer in this case would be:
          1. They don't have to pay CS (CS at that time would be about 800/mo for both dads) so that they could use the money on whatever it is they need.
          2. They can have them for the summer, and all major holidays if they like.
          3. Since my income will be higher at that time, I can pay for summer activities/babysitter while they are at the dads'.
          4. I will have to ask for an accommodation in a case of work-based emergency (unpredictable hours, often on-call). For example, to be flexible with dates (+- 48 hrs) if there is a work-related emergency I have to attend and I cannot physically drop the kids off during that time.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Zhoozhelitsa View Post
            They chose to give up on them by entrusting them voluntarily into my full care. I guess the better way to word it is that they gave up the responsibility of joint parenting.
            I don't agree with this statement.

            Just because you are the primary parent, and probably could win sole custody if you did fight for it in court, does not remove their natural right of the other parent to joint custody.

            In other words, until a court orders that you have sole custody, you don't. The actions of your ex's may sway the courts to grant you sole, but do not amount to an automatic release of rights.

            You ex's have as much entitlement to the kids as you do, notwithstanding you doing the majority of the parenting. The children are entitled to a relationship with both parents, and it is commonly held that it is the responsibility of the custodial parent to promote that relationship, as that is what is in the children's best interests.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Zhoozhelitsa View Post
              1. Why did you feel compelled to patronize Blink?
              What are you talking about? I'm done with you.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by dadtotheend View Post
                What are you talking about? I'm done with you.
                Well, there are these things called dictionaries...

                Comment


                • #83
                  Just because you are the primary parent, and probably could win sole custody if you did fight for it in court, does not remove their natural right of the other parent to joint custody.

                  Let me think this through. My problem isn't with the right to joint custody. My problem is that while the right to joint custody is universally emphasized, the notion of joint responsibility of raising a child isn't. So it becomes lopsided somewhat. In other words, access parents have the right to joint parenting but they have an option to either exercise this right or withdraw; while for a custodial parent it isn't an option. Is this a correct understanding?

                  Also, just wanted to ask you as someone who has experience with the system of family justice in this country, because I would like an opinion. The responsibilities of joint parenting are not enforced as strictly as the rights to joint parenting. Would you agree or disagree?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Zhoozhelitsa View Post
                    So it becomes lopsided somewhat. In other words, access parents have the right to joint parenting but they have an option to either exercise this right or withdraw; while for a custodial parent it isn't an option. Is this a correct understanding?
                    No.
                    Either parent can withdraw from their parental role.
                    Both parents must provide financial support.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Zhoozhelitsa View Post
                      Let me think this through. My problem isn't with the right to joint custody. My problem is that while the right to joint custody is universally emphasized, the notion of joint responsibility of raising a child isn't. So it becomes lopsided somewhat. In other words, access parents have the right to joint parenting but they have an option to either exercise this right or withdraw; while for a custodial parent it isn't an option. Is this a correct understanding?
                      That would be a close understanding. Until a court makes an order relating to custody, each parent natural parent is equally entitled to custody and the child is entitled to equal relationship with both parents.

                      I believe you are focusing too much on the parenting side of the equation, and believe because you do more parenting you should have more rights. Effort doesn't = rights. Just because you may do more parenting doesn't make your ex's are any less important to your child than you. They each provide a role in your child's life and the child is entitled to benefit from such role.

                      Yes, there are NCP's who default on their role. But there are also CP's that default in their role as well.

                      My ex complains that she does more parenting then I do and that she feels I have too many rights. The reality is I know my rights, it isn't that I have any special entitlement. She says she is the primary parent and should be able to dictate x, y and z. I reply with if she is having such issues, I would more than happily change roles with her.

                      Edit - Dinky does make a good point that either parent can withdraw. My point is that both parents have rights until a court says they don't or they choose not to use them (which only hurts the children).
                      Last edited by HammerDad; 03-21-2011, 03:49 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
                        That would be a close understanding. Until a court makes an order relating to custody, each parent natural parent is equally entitled to custody and the child is entitled to equal relationship with both parents.

                        I believe you are focusing too much on the parenting side of the equation, and believe because you do more parenting you should have more rights. Effort doesn't = rights. Just because you may do more parenting doesn't make your ex's are any less important to your child than you. They each provide a role in your child's life and the child is entitled to benefit from such role.

                        Yes, there are NCP's who default on their role. But there are also CP's that default in their role as well.

                        My ex complains that she does more parenting then I do and that she feels I have too many rights. The reality is I know my rights, it isn't that I have any special entitlement. She says she is the primary parent and should be able to dictate x, y and z. I reply with if she is having such issues, I would more than happily change roles with her.

                        Edit - Dinky does make a good point that either parent can withdraw. My point is that both parents have rights until a court says they don't or they choose not to use them (which only hurts the children).
                        I guess it would be true to say that I focus a lot on the parenting side, but this is because that's what I do therefore personal biases are coming into play here. But let's try and put them aside and think more systemically.

                        It appears that the system works if both parents are rational and both have an interest in parenting the child. That's ideal. But let's say, here is a situation where an NCP is not interested in parenting but is interested in rights. How does the system protect the CP in this case, if at all? Let's say a mother is an NCP who tries to avoid paying CS (let's say, hides her income or is underemployed) and doesn't seem to care about the child's needs. She does insist on access. The father (CP) then has the responsibility to promote the relationship and ensure access b/c it's in the childs' best interest, so this is what he does b/c he's a conscientious father.

                        If the mother insists on her rights of access, she has them automatically (unless she's an axe murderer). If the mother decides to hide her income, the dad will have to go a long way in order to prove anything and get what belongs to the child. So it appears that rights are easy to enforce while responsibilities aren't so easy. Would you agree? Would you have a speculation as to why it's the way it is?


                        Again, this is a 'systemic' talk. This doesn't pertain to my situation.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          It is the way it is because professional after professional has agreed that it is in the children's best interests to have a relationship with both parents.

                          As for the hypothetical scenario, there are remedies that the CP can use to get proper support. FRO, contempt, imputing income etc. Same goes with CP's that deny access. NCP's can take them to court for contempt and have the court order make up time.

                          Access and c/s are not linked for this purpose. Because if you link them, and one parent (be it CP or NCP) starts to renege on their obligation, the other parent can snowball the situation by refusing to live up to their obligations. So, CP denies access. As a result, the NCP refuses to pay cs. That pisses of the CP so they continue to deny access etc etc.......and then you are in a vicous cycle where the child loses.

                          Taking a child centric position and the rights of the child to a relationship with both parents is the fairest scenario. The child is innocent of the parents actions, and should not be deprived of a relationship with either parent, notwithstanding roles, or who does more work for the child, or who is right or wrong.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by dinkyface View Post
                            No.
                            Either parent can withdraw from their parental role.
                            Both parents must provide financial support.
                            True. But logistically, if one parent decides to withdraw assuming that the other one will take on the full responsibility without consulting that parent first to ensure the remaining parent is capable, does this seem like an unfair deal to the remaining parent?

                            Say, a mother decides to leave the family and just takes off. The father is now the primary caregiver b/c he doesn't have a choice other than giving the kids up for adoption. It may take months to for him to start receiving CS. Again, the right to withdraw from parenting for the mom in this case is instant, and enforcing her responsibility (CS) could be a slow and painful process.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Zhoozhelitsa View Post
                              True. But logistically, if one parent decides to withdraw assuming that the other one will take on the full responsibility without consulting that parent first to ensure the remaining parent is capable, does this seem like an unfair deal to the remaining parent?

                              Say, a mother decides to leave the family and just takes off. The father is now the primary caregiver b/c he doesn't have a choice other than giving the kids up for adoption. It may take months to for him to start receiving CS. Again, the right to withdraw from parenting for the mom in this case is instant, and enforcing her responsibility (CS) could be a slow and painful process.
                              You can't legislate intelligence or morality....or common sense or ethics.

                              If one parent chooses to be a douche, that it their choice. Yes, it affects the other parent and the child, but we aren't in a place in our society where we can prevent someone from being self-destructive in this manner.

                              Being stupid or ignorant isn't against the laws right now. They aren't endangering the child, or most likely themselves where the courts could step in more.

                              If one parent where to leave, well....that sucks. But you as a parent suck it up because that is what is best for the child. And when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                I have to say...I am not in agreement with any of your reasons to uproot your children and take them away from dad....having said that...I admire you standing on point....even when enduring such foul and abusive language/abuse exerted from blink and dtte...this is quite normal behavior from these two especially if you do not agree with them...playing on words is something they're are quite ready to do&quote others on but are used often themselves in order to try and prove points...if called on such...they seem to step it up by using foul and abusive words...my humble opinion it gives them a sence of power and control.

                                Again I do not agree with your position I do admire your restraint. ...better than I could of done faced with the assault you went through lol.

                                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