A leg to stand on?

[earthmother1970]

Most ex partners don't have a lot of respect for each other. If they did, maybe they would have been able to stay together. Waiting for respect from an ex spouse is like waiting for the sun to turn green. Don't hold your breath, you don't live life on their terms any more, and vice versa.

I don't expect him to respect my personal life decisions. However, it should be possible to respect as best as possible the joint role of parenting?

And yes, I do realize that might be a naive presumption.

[stripes]

I suggest you let a few days pass and see if your daughter is still talking about staying with her father. If she's doing fine and has dropped the issue, I suggest not even raising it with the ex. It may have been a momentary thing - she was upset with you about something, she thought living with dad 50/50 will be like the vacation she just came back from, whatever. This could blow over. Your ex sounds like the type who would enjoy the confrontation and posturing that goes with conflict over the kids - police, lawyers, etc - don't get into it with him unless absolutely necessary.

If she's still being testy about it, or if the ex is raising the issue, then follow your lawyer's advice - a calm email acknowledging that he has expressed interest in changing the parenting agreement, quoting the wording of your order concerning how changes in parenting arrangements are to be discussed, and leaving it up to him to initiate discussions per the order. Don't discuss the merits of 50/50 vs primary custody in your email and don't mention anything that your daughter has said or indicated to you. She should not be a part of this discussion.

I can imagine how infuriating it must be to have this situation land on you thanks to an ex who can't manage to behave like a grownup parent, but you need to try to keep your emotions out of it, as difficult as that is. As you say, someone needs to be the adult here.

[Mess]

II have spoken to my lawyer this morning though. She says he is in violation of the agreement, and that if I were to take him to court, the outcome would most likely not be favourable for him. He is not legally allowed to make unilateral decisions or repeatedly break the SA clauses. As my lawyer said, in court, it's a case of whose nose is cleaner. Court is my last option of choice though. Meanwhile, she has advised that I send an email to him as a reminder of the legal terms of the agreement, and she has stated that if he tries to make any further unilateral changes to the agreement, that I pursue the legal options available..

Yes and no. Your lawyer is essentially advising you to litigate, and giving you the arguments of your litigation.

Your ex will respond to the judge that the 14 year old indicated their wishes, and he took those wishes to heart. That he believed that at that age a court would take those wishes strongly into account. That he was avoiding taking this to court because he felt it was unnecessary. That earlier changes with the elder child from full residence with him that changed to 50/50 did not require extensive litigation, and he did not feel that litigation was necessary in this case. He will state that he felt that a change in the schedule like this was precedented by the similar change, and that there should have been no issues with simply implementing it.

By the time this gets to trial the child will be 15 at least, and any decision will be moot.

You are taking the stance that because your lawyer says you are right, you don't have to negotiate. That stance does not always work out.

[DowntroddenDad]

You are taking the stance that because your lawyer says you are right, you don't have to negotiate. That stance does not always work out.

Except for the lawyer....it will work out great for them.

[earthmother1970]

Yes and no. Your lawyer is essentially advising you to litigate, and giving you the arguments of your litigation.

Your ex will respond to the judge that the 14 year old indicated their wishes, and he took those wishes to heart. That he believed that at that age a court would take those wishes strongly into account. That he was avoiding taking this to court because he felt it was unnecessary. That earlier changes with the elder child from full residence with him that changed to 50/50 did not require extensive litigation, and he did not feel that litigation was necessary in this case. He will state that he felt that a change in the schedule like this was precedented by the similar change, and that there should have been no issues with simply implementing it.

By the time this gets to trial the child will be 15 at least, and any decision will be moot.

You are taking the stance that because your lawyer says you are right, you don't have to negotiate. That stance does not always work out.

It seems there is a deliberate misunderstanding here. The only one who has not been negotiating here is him. He expects me to follow the rules as set out in the agreement, and I have - to the letter. So explain to me why if I have to follow the rules, it is your firm contention that he does not have to do so? A legal document is still legally binding?

So seeing as he arbitrarily changed access arrangements, and this is apparently acceptable, does that justify me doing the same thing the next time one of the older children calls me up and asks me to come get them straight away because they want to move back here? Just drive over and demand the kids and threaten to call the police if he doesn't jump to immediately obey? Because after all, it's their decision, right? As a supportive parent with the best interests of the children in mind, I should listen to their decisions and allow them to make up their own minds about everything, after all...

My lawyer advised further litigation as a last resort if he continues to flaunt the terms of the agreement. Her ideal suggestion is that he attend meetings with a parenting mediator, but I can tell you that's not going to be something he agrees to do. How do I know? He's already refused previously. The only person who has made threats of court and calling the police is him. Meanwhile (as stated) what she has recommended is an email reminding him of the terms of the agreement which he signed.



As for the child who spent the past school year with him - that's one year out of the over 4 since separation.

[me_vs_HCF]

So explain to me why if I have to follow the rules, it is your firm contention that he does not have to do so? A legal document is still legally binding?

The bigger person follows the rules, any tool can do what they want. I'll assume he was an ass when you were married to him? Why would things change with a divorce?

[Berner_Faith]

I think what you are failing to understand is that at 14 the wishes of the child will be taken into STRONG consideration. You have already admitted that had he asked you, the answer would be yes, but because he didn't you want to fight. Your daughter could leave your house and go to her father's and there is little anyone will do. A court will not force the 14 year old to stick to an EOW situation.

Yes he was an ass with the way he did it, but to deny your daughter her father because he didn't do things the way the agreement was written, makes you look like the bad one to your daughter. She is at an age where having her father in her life is important. She isn't requesting to live with her full time, she wants EQUAL time...

What are your concerns with this, OTHER than the way it happened?

[Pursuinghappiness]

I guess what I am wondering is if there is any point of contacting my lawyer about any of this? I am just feeling rather railroaded and disrespected. If he and I are supposed to make joint decisions regarding education and religion and medical issues, surely a change in access should also be on the table?

Reading your post, the first thing that struck me is that you don't seem to be concerned about why your daughter is making this decision.

Its true...the methodology used may be an inconvenience and asking about how things work legally is fine, however, where is your concern about why she feels like she's been driven at 14 to change the access arrangement? Is it just that she wants to spend more time with her dad (which is great) or that she wants to spend less time with you (not so great).

It would not be good if your ex was encouraging your children to "bounce around" everytime they get angry at some situation at either's house. But what struck me in reading your post is that you don't seem concerned about the root cause of why she wants the change and are concentrating on how disrespectful his methodology is instead.

My advice is that if she has a legitimate reason that seems healthy and balanced...ie. she wants a better relationship with her father and needs time with both of you equally....embrace and encourage the change. She's 14 and has the right to have a voice. If its something negative about you...you should probably be trying to work that through with your kid.

[Tayken]

I think what you are failing to understand is that at 14 the wishes of the child will be taken into STRONG consideration. You have already admitted that had he asked you, the answer would be yes, but because he didn't you want to fight. Your daughter could leave your house and go to her father's and there is little anyone will do. A court will not force the 14 year old to stick to an EOW situation.

Careful... yes they will... But, only in a situation where a parent has demonstrated that the reason the child doesn't want to go is because of the conduct of the "custodial parent" who has "majority access". The child's request has to be genuine and not influenced by the other parent... if it is... access for a 14 year old can and will be enforced...

The case on point is this case law: CanLII - 2013 ONSC 4655 (CanLII)

But, you should read:

CanLII - 2012 ONSC 2727 (CanLII)
CanLII - 2012 ONSC 3212 (CanLII)
CanLII - 2013 ONSC 2364 (CanLII)

To get a full understanding of the reference I provided as a "case on point". The mother in this matter I am citing had the opinion that the child's opinion trumps all other orders etc... She has now been found in contempt and given one last opportunity to purge the contempt by September 30, 2013.

Yes he was an ass with the way he did it, but to deny your daughter her father because he didn't do things the way the agreement was written, makes you look like the bad one to your daughter. She is at an age where having her father in her life is important. She isn't requesting to live with her full time, she wants EQUAL time...

What are your concerns with this, OTHER than the way it happened?

This is an excellent question BF! I highly recommend that you consider this question being posed to you OP. Ponder it... Although it appears to be a simple question that BF is posing... If answered honestly it could save you a lot of pain, agony and expenses... As well, it could save your child/ren a lot of emotional pain and agony potentially.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[earthmother1970]

Her stated reasons: her two younger siblings are annoying and her room here isn't big enough. My relationship with her: I'd rate it as very good to excellent. Yes, we have our moments, but I'd sort of expect that to be normal.

I did not say I would have agreed to it. I said I would have considered the possibility, and I would have done so with an open mind.

As for regular access, he has never been denied it in any way. I have always encouraged the children to have regular periods of time with him, even when they have expressed unwillingness to comply.