A Messy Situation

[MaksMom]

Looking for thoughts/opinions on the following situation.
A family member is having this problem.

Mom & dad seperate. 2 kids (12 &13). Seperation agreement was signed. It stated that the parents would have 50/50 living and custody (2 weeks with each parent), since the parents make basically the same amount of money no child support, that both parties would live in the same city (hopefully close) and agree to not move the kids.

3 weeks after the seperation agreement is signed the one parent A moves the kids an hour away, new house, change in school etc. When parent B finds out the kids beg to not be moved, they love their new house, back at a school they were at years ago, back with old friends. Now parent A is really good at mind games, threats to take kids away, has lots of family financial backing. Parent B doesnt qualify for legal aid but doesnt have have extra income to pay for a lawyer and doesnt want to lose the kids or have them mad (oldest threatens to run away). Parent B gives parent A money for support but nothing in writing and stupidly parent B always pays in cash or pays parent A's bills.
Parent B sees the kids every weekend etc, all is fine for almost a year. Then PAS starts. Parent A gets in a new relationship and basically all hell breaks lose, wont go into all the details. One child then moves in with parent B. Another year passes with parent B never seeing oldest child (PAS) dispite countless attempts. Youngest child sees parent A.

As parent B starts divorce proceedings parent A has decided that back child support is wanted (3 years later)
a) when one parents disobeys agreement & takes kids, is there any repremand? do they get in trouble for taking them away or since parent B didnt act years ago is it forgotten?
b) if a teenage child refuses to see bio parent, does bio parent still have to pay for that child? (morally yes i get that). I guess what I am wondering is if the child "divorces" one parent and other parent helps in destroying that relationship why should that parent get support. It bothers me that both parent A and the child only see parent B as a bank, and the only interaction they want is in the way of a cheque.

Note: in all honesty the only reason the child refuses to see parent B is because that parent has rules, curfew and chores. Parent A lets child run free, which for a teenager is heaven. There was NO fight or abuse or anything between child and parent B.

Thank you & im sorry for the long post

[Mess]

Parent B needs to consult a lawyer whether they think they can afford one or not. Make it a very experienced family law/divorce specialist. After consult, look at options to save money, but you won't understand all your options without proper legal advice.

Parent B could have halted the move before it happened, and I don't believe for a minute the kids would have been able to keep it secret. If they did, then PAS was already in play. PAS is grounds to seek, and usually win, full custody, but it is ugly and expensive. What is worth more, dollar bills or your kids? Have to decide for yourself.

Courts usually won't enforce access/residence on a teenager unless they want it, teens can just run away and it is too messy. You have seen this already in this situation.

Back support will be grey area. Courts won't usually put a huge burden of arrears on a parent that has child living with them, this is not in child's best interest. The parent seeking arrears has already done well enough without the support. This is one of the few cases where child support can be not paid. Don't give in on this.

Support now will be offset by split custody, 1 child with each parent. Parent B has much cause to claim PAS and require alienated child to receive counselling. If can't afford to go to court, then hard to help you. Possible to self-represent, but a) that is rolling the dice & b) it is a full time job learning how to do so. Can be done though.

There is cases where a teen has removed themselves from parental control and if they refuse 100% of contact, then support may end. Get proper legal advice on this. It is not automatic, you will have to go through courts and show it. Better off trying counselling and get the child to move in 50/50.

There is no "punishment" for breaking the agreement, but parent B could have used motions (self represent for motions is reasonable, or seek costs when won) to enforce the agreement years ago at little or no cost. Badly played.

[griz161]

Parent B not thinking with the right head, cash?? come on, screwed already. The moving parent is always allowed to move as far away as they want but guess what not with the kids. Is the moving parent a psycho like that woman in Calgary who drowned her kids cause the court wouldn't allow her to move them to Australia? Parent B should of had a lawyer from day 1 but seems too cheap, guess what.. once your kids are gone money won't mean anything. You wake up and go to work like every other Canadian Dad so you can pay a lawyer. I'm sorry to be blunt if this happened to your son.

[PHILMACK]

Pas

What is pas ? You said pass starts.
I am new at this and after countless threats from my wife that she is seeking a separation, i think our relationship maybe over.. So i am curious as to some of the terminology...

[dadtotheend]

PAS = Parental Alienation Syndrome

[PHILMACK]

Does anyone know about spousal support ?
Are there any stipulations in the Ontario courts that states anything resembling.... if a man & wife are married for more than 15 years then spousal support is mandatory (I'm not referring to child support - that is a different issue)

[PHILMACK]

Spousal Support Question

Are there any stipulations in the Ontario courts that states anything resembling.... if a man & wife are married for more than 15 years then spousal support is mandatory (I'm not referring to child support - that is a different issue)

[dinkyface]

If the parents are making about the same amount, then no spousal support.

[PHILMACK]

Lets say the husband earns twice what the wife earn, but I am more concerned with a timeline, is there a magic date ? As I think my wife is holding out. We have been married for 17 years (18 come June 2011) And she notifed me that our relationship was over on Jan 28th 2010. But then, If I am not mistaken, She was told by her laywer to stay with me for another year, because come the 18th year, "Regardless" of how much she earns, or even if she re-marries, I will have to pay spousal support for the rest of my life ! Is this correct

[dinkyface]

Sounds like BS. Have a read through the Spousal Support guidelines - there is NOTHING in there that would indicate that a higher-earning spouse should receive SS. Actually, in that case, if you were earning less, then YOU should be receiving. SS rules are (supposed to be) gender-neutral.

For shorter marriages, SS amounts are set to bring the lower-earning spouse's disposable income to 40-46% of your combined disposable income. But for longer marriages (18+ years) SS would generally be higher, because the goal for longer marriages tends towards equalizing the standards of living. But, as the duration of SS increases, the amount is likely to be decreased (as per guidelines).

But then again, there are always circumstances specific to each case. Perhaps your ex can clearly show that she sacrificed her earning-power by taking on a home-maker role during the marriage, which means that now she is earning only 2/3 of what she COULD be earning. So she is claiming compensatory SS.

Here is a link to the guidelines: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fcy-...f/SSAG_eng.pdf

See section 7.5 on duration.

[PHILMACK]

Thank you for looking into this...