View Single Post
  #3  
Old 01-18-2007, 03:59 PM
smadax smadax is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 63
smadax is on a distinguished road
Default Harder then it has to be

[QUOTE=logicalvelocity] Did the court not order custody? It also appears that the orders may be interim. [QUOTE]

That's correct, the order states:
"(The child) shall remain in the care of his father the respondant. The fathers home shall be the childs principal residence on an interim bases."

[QUOTE]One thing to note is that guardianship is a big thing in western provinces. Even if one party has sole custody, generally parents will have coextensive guardianship of their child unless the court orders otherwise. [QUOTE]

There is no mention of Gaurdianship in the order.

[QUOTE] I believe your sister should of filed an exparte motion in the BC courts on the failure of the child returning as per the agreement and I believe they would of entertained same due to the fact the child was ordinarily a resident before the access occurred. It is too late now as the Sask courts have issued orders. Perhaps your sister could appeal the orders. [QUOTE]

That was my STRONG suggestion, but when she spoke to the BC Court Registry they said she'd have to file were the child resides, which was SK at the time (regardless of the fact she had defacto custody). Then my sister filed for Legal Aid in BC and they assigned her a SK Lawyer. I personally would have raised a stink about how things were unfolding and insisted that I be allowed to file in BC, but my sister decided to go with the flow.

[QUOTE]Here is another idea, what if your sister was to relocate to SASK near the child, this would construe to be a material change and therefore would result in review of the current arrangements of the child. [QUOTE]

This would not be healthy, b/c my sister was in a mentally abusive relationship with her ex and living close to him without family support would not be good for her. They would only continue to use the child against her.

Quote:
Hopefully, your sister has such an offer in writing. What I mean is this. Access is the right of the child and a parent centered on the child's needs does everything they can to foster a meaningful relationship between child and other parent. They appear to be using the child as some sort of bargaining chip. If I was your sister, I wouldn't consent to the name change and when the matter does go before the court, bring this up. Also since the child was normally a resident of BC, i would think that the parent has an obligation to provide and participate in the child's access transportation.
Nothing has been documented, except for the existing Custody Order created in August. She's been trying to get her Legal Aid lawyer to file documents to acquire scheduled access/visitation with her son. She wants phone calls twice a week and the child to visit with her in BC. Instead they told her 'obsession' is making her look crazy?! My sister fighting for access rights to her son is not obsessive or crazy in my opinion!

She couldn't get through to call her son for a month because it kept saying her phone calls are blocked. So I routed a phone call through my phone (3-way) and she got through, they denied her access to the child because he was doing crafts and it wasn't her designated date/time to be calling. So we called back again on her designated date/time and during the conversation they started blasting the music in the background so they could barely hear each other on the phone.

It's been about 4 months of limited access since the order has been created. Yet her Legal Aid lawyer hasn't made a move to assist and when she keeps asking them when they'll sent the legal documents which they've promised, they never give her a real answer.