Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jail time for withholding access

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Yes I am entitled to receive SS indefinitely. However, if my ex wants to retire and have SS terminated he will probably have to prove to the court that he has the funds upon which to retire. In doing this he would have to reveal his real finances wouldn't he? So I think he has kind of screwed himself in the end.

    SS is fully taxable. I would have much preferred to have maintained my original business investment and would have reinvested it. SS is therefore not a really big deal to me but you can bet it is a big deal to my ex.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by arabian View Post
      Here's a recent update from Ontario on the woman who abducted her daughter (Amber Alert).

      Mom denied access to daughter | Welland Tribune
      This matter is an interesting one. The challenge that the abducting parent has is one of habitual residential location. If the child has been resident in Egypt then the court will return the child.

      Recent case law is not in this abducting parent's favour:

      Orlowska v Orlowski, 2016 ONSC 7472 (CanLII)
      Date: 2016-12-07
      Docket: FS-16-408028
      Citation: Orlowska v Orlowski, 2016 ONSC 7472 (CanLII),
      http://canlii.ca/t/gvzx0

      Child returned to Poland despite claims of "abuse" by the abducting parent.
      [40]** ** ** * As noted by Justice Hood in Usmani, there is an informative definition of “habitually resident” under the Children’s Law Reform Act R.S.O. 1990 c. C.12.* Section 22 of that Act provides that a child is habitually resident where he/she resided with both parents, or where the parents are living separate and apart with one parent under a separation agreement or with the consent, implied consent or acquiescence of the other parent, or under a court order.

      Source: Orlowska v Orlowski, 2016 ONSC 7472 (CanLII), par. 40, http://canlii.ca/t/gvzx0#par40
      And this recent appeal is a huge win for parents seeking the return of their children after they have been wrongfully removed:

      Winsa v Henderson, 2016 ONSC 1736 (CanLII)
      Date: 2016-03-22
      Docket: C61336; DC-931
      Citation: Winsa v Henderson, 2016 ONSC 1736 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/gsshg

      [77]** ** * For the above reasons, therefore, the appeal is allowed. Ontario does not have jurisdiction to determine the issues of custody and access of C.H.

      Source: Winsa v Henderson, 2016 ONSC 1736 (CanLII), par. 77, http://canlii.ca/t/gsshg#par77
      The abducting parent in this matter took the law into their own hands and this will haunt their case. The CND courts are very respectful of other jurisdictions and the Rules regarding habitual residential jurisdiction of children.

      Good Luck!
      Tayken

      Comment


      • #18
        Back to the issue of jail time for access denials. It has been ordered in Canada. It is a rare situation where it happens but, if you search CanLII you can find the examples.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Tayken View Post
          This matter is an interesting one. The challenge that the abducting parent has is one of habitual residential location. If the child has been resident in Egypt then the court will return the child.

          Recent case law is not in this abducting parent's favour:

          Orlowska v Orlowski, 2016 ONSC 7472 (CanLII)
          Date: 2016-12-07
          Docket: FS-16-408028
          Citation: Orlowska v Orlowski, 2016 ONSC 7472 (CanLII),
          http://canlii.ca/t/gvzx0

          Child returned to Poland despite claims of "abuse" by the abducting parent.


          And this recent appeal is a huge win for parents seeking the return of their children after they have been wrongfully removed:

          Winsa v Henderson, 2016 ONSC 1736 (CanLII)
          Date: 2016-03-22
          Docket: C61336; DC-931
          Citation: Winsa v Henderson, 2016 ONSC 1736 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/gsshg



          The abducting parent in this matter took the law into their own hands and this will haunt their case. The CND courts are very respectful of other jurisdictions and the Rules regarding habitual residential jurisdiction of children.

          Good Luck!
          Tayken

          Very good case Tayken.


          (I didn't miss the part where the mother "tackled" her 13-year-old son). A very contentious situation.

          Both parties previously agreed that Hawaii was habitual residence so this Appeal makes sense.

          Comment


          • #20
            My experience, judge's are just plain scared/politically correct/etc to actually enforce this stuff. I've watched through my own experience the judge warn my X over and over and over to comply, stop the destructive and abusive behaviours and do what's right. They've been threatened with costs, jail, etc and to no avail.

            How about we start jailing parents who allege false sexual/physical abuse without merit as well? The list goes on. Again, it's gonna take judges actually finally standing up, strong being afraid and actually doing the right things. I'm not labeling all judges as we know there are decisions coming down the pipe BUT they are few and far between.

            Comment


            • #21
              You have to consider the psychological damage to the children in some of these cases. More often than not, in cases where access is being denied, the withholder is working to alienate the child. Which means they are being led to believe that the other parent is a threat to them. By jailing the alienator, it forces the child to be with the parent they have been led to believe is harmful. Not only are they being forced to be in the care of someone they think is bad, that person has now put their "safe" parent in jail.

              I do believe stricter penalties need to be put on parents who are unreasonable but there also needs to be a consideration for the well being of the child. It could be better served by forcing 50/50 custody or increased time for the neglected parent but add in psychological counseling.

              Unless there is a major push to "nip it in the bud" at the beginning, the chances of damaging the child emotionally increase as time goes on.

              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