Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vacations/Appointments Question

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Rioe View Post
    My agreement has a paragraph about needing to inform my ex if I plan to take the children out of the province. Not get consent before doing so, just inform in advance. It wasn't anything either of us asked to have put in there, so it is probably pretty standard.

    Of course, the only time I ever took the kids out of province since signing it was only for a few hours and I completely forgot about the clause.
    I don't believe it is a standard clause - and they use DM now to draft and draw from separation agreement clauses these days and unless requested, it wouldn't typically be part of one. Rioe, how old is your agreement? You've noted you forgot about the clause and didn't notify - what was the ex' reaction?

    It's not a clause in mine from 1998, and I just checked the last 6 or so generated and exchanged between offices in the last few months and it is not in any of those, either.

    Frankly, if my ex wanted to control/restrict my parenting time in that manner, I'd likely send a text on my way out of the province, particularly since I'm going to Grandma's house. What I do with the kidlet on my time is our time - what he does with his time, is his. And we don't live on a border town now, but I'm from one, and slipping in and out of provinces is a frequent occurrence.

    Stripes has got it right.
    Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

    Comment


    • #17
      Well .. we have some poster's who agree that it's completely reasonable to be informed when a child is leaving the province .. and some poster's who find it's not.

      My opinion is that every situation is markedly different and I strongly believe that clauses are created for a reason. Most cases I read have such a clause. Not all judges adopt the "none-of-your-business where your kid is on other parents parenting time" approach.

      But I got a wealth of good info on this topic and for that I thank all who contributed.

      Stripes has got it right
      ...In your opinion. There are many different ones circulating. I dont think it's a "right" vs. "wrong" thing.
      Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-22-2015, 10:11 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        I don't think knowing when your child exits the province matters.

        The reality is that when you are divorced and the child is with the other parent you are pretty much completely irrelevant except in case of a major medical issue.

        When my kids are not with me, they don't exist - its how I cope with it. There is nothing I can do to contact them, speak to them, know what they're doing so I just live as if I was childless.....

        The fact you get to know when they are leaving the country is a relic from the past and only relevant if your ex wants to take them a non-hague convention country but I see no actual practical reason for the whole "seek permission" thing for any travelling as long as the parent is always in hague convention countries.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Links17 View Post
          I don't think knowing when your child exits the province matters.

          The reality is that when you are divorced and the child is with the other parent you are pretty much completely irrelevant except in case of a major medical issue.

          When my kids are not with me, they don't exist - its how I cope with it. There is nothing I can do to contact them, speak to them, know what they're doing so I just live as if I was childless.....

          The fact you get to know when they are leaving the country is a relic from the past and only relevant if your ex wants to take them a non-hague convention country but I see no actual practical reason for the whole "seek permission" thing for any travelling as long as the parent is always in hague convention countries.
          Yeh .. I hear you Links. My ex is building status quo in QC though instead of here .. in an attempt to request a relocation come trial .. or after. Each case is unique. Different strokes for different folks.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
            I don't believe it is a standard clause - and they use DM now to draft and draw from separation agreement clauses these days and unless requested, it wouldn't typically be part of one. Rioe, how old is your agreement? You've noted you forgot about the clause and didn't notify - what was the ex' reaction?
            The agreement is from 2011, so it's not that old. I don't remember if the clause came from our mediator who drafted the agreement quite efficiently, or from either of our lawyers who tinkered with it quite inefficiently. We probably just read it, had no problem with it and shrugged and left it in.

            The time I forgot about it was just a day trip during a visit to the National Capitol Region, where I wasn't really thinking about Gatineau-Hull not actually being in Ontario. I clued in as I crossed the river. I told my ex about it at the first exchange afterwards when I was telling him how the trip went. He said "okay."

            I tell my ex every time we leave town, just as a courtesy. I have no idea if he does the same, or keeps it from me. The kids haven't mentioned any secret trips though.

            LFs situation is quite different from mine though. He's got an ex trying her best to circumvent everything reasonable and get the child to Quebec with her. She's got majority access time, and spends it ALL in Quebec from the sounds of it. Despite their interim order saying where the child officially resides, she's busy setting up a status quo that the child spends most of her time somewhere else. It's going to be up to the next judge to either agree with her and let her move the child to preserve the status quo established through guile, or slap her hard for disobeying the spirit of the interim agreement.

            LF should highlight the continuation of her pattern of establishing status quo through manipulation in his trial submissions if his ex tries to insist that the child should be in Quebec. Also, once the child is in school in Ontario, it becomes harder for his ex to travel so often without making her miss school noticeably. This is why his ex is fighting to keep the child out of JK.

            He definitely needs a mobility clause saying the child's residence shall not be moved out of the city without his consent in his final agreement.

            Wait this all sounds familiar ... senatorial almost! As long as your official residence is in PEI, it doesn't matter that you spend most of your time living in Ottawa, right?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Rioe View Post
              Despite their interim order saying where the child officially resides, she's busy setting up a status quo that the child spends most of her time somewhere else
              Precisely. This was not the judges intention for status quo. The judge even wrote in the mobility clause "to ensure an effective status quo in (this city).

              Also, once the child is in school in Ontario, it becomes harder for his ex to travel so often without making her miss school noticeably. This is why his ex is fighting to keep the child out of JK.
              Thank the lord other's see it. In the judges endorsement ..she even wrote "I find that the mother didnt even look at schools in her area"

              S/K isn't that long away .. she doesnt know one school on her area? To me thats telling.

              Plus I remember MIL discussing how D4 would benefit from QC schools at an exchange .. in front of the supervisor.

              He definitely needs a mobility clause saying the child's residence shall not be moved out of the city without his consent in his final agreement.
              Yes. This is of paramount importance.

              It's like I know what she's up to but can't do anything about it. Like some posters state .. none of my business (until she moves because she built status quo)? When does that become my business .. when D4 is 2.5 hours away instead of 15 minutes in a mtl school?

              At least with a a clause of her providing me courtesy notification that she was leaving the province .. I would know exactly how often. But then again .. who says she would give that notification.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
                I have a mobility clause that deals with relocation. It clearly states that it's in place to maintain an effective status quo in Ottawa. Not another province. But it's only in effect for relocation. LF32
                Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                LFs situation is quite different from mine though.
                Actually, no, I don’t think it's all that different, Rioe. The OP apparently has an order that according to him “clearly states” effective status quo is maintained in Ottawa. This ex can’t set up alternate status quo. And, of course, they live in a border town, with grandparents on both sides – When I was living in that town, we moved frequently between borders for best buys on burger meat, chicken, etc. The OP’s request for notice appears to be aggressive and controlling.

                And btw, fwiw, both my ex and I certainly would not have placed our kidlet into the Ontario JK system.. it is essentially an overpriced, glorified daycare system that the Ontario liberals put into place to buy votes. Was the OP's motion judge a 'Capital L' Liberal?

                It's funny, I think my ex is more of a political conservative socially, but we would not have tossed our kidlet into jk, we both expect more from our caregivers. And the provincial liberals won that year based on the appeal to the typical low/middle income family need to lose their daycare bill, which is understandable.

                But the political forecast is changing, and the Ontario jk might be on the cutting board. Our household is already putting some financial decisions on hold pending the upcoming election, Harper has yet to balance a budget, and overpaid teachers can’t produce a report card apparently. It is going to be an interesting election.

                Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
                I believe that in a case like mine (which is not your average case) .. that this is not an unreasonable request (In our opinions). LF32
                Apparently I need to spend more time here reading and get out of my summer vaca /yoga brain mode. Did something exceptional happen in the last few weeks with your case?

                Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
                ...In your opinion. There are many different ones circulating. I dont think it's a "right" vs. "wrong" thing.
                In my opinion, Stripes and Links have more of an “accurate” thing going on as it relates to parenting 2015.
                Last edited by mcdreamy; 08-23-2015, 06:44 PM.
                Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
                  And, of course, they live in a border town, with grandparents on both sides –
                  Who lives on a border town? Not me. And actually MIL lives way out of mtl, past indian reserves. It's quite the drive. Not just tiptoeing over to a COSTCO for a good deal for a few minutes.
                  Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
                  And btw, fwiw, both my ex and I certainly would not have placed our kidlet into the Ontario JK system..
                  Thank you for your opinion on the Ontario j/k. Working in many schools I have witnessed first hand how amazing these teachers and ECE's are.

                  More importantly, I witness children develop themselves and learn in a holistic manner.

                  I'm sorry to hear that you have such a negative view of Ontario J/K. I can assure you that its much more than glorified daycare.

                  Politics suck .. yep. But j/k accomplish's quite a bit for a child. I can produce the gov't studies confirming this if you wish.

                  Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
                  The OP’s request for notice appears to be aggressive and controlling.
                  Of course it is. Never a dull moment with you McDreamy

                  It's a pretty common clause. You can make it in to this big aggressive, controlling monstrosity if you'd like.

                  But that's pretty foolish given it's a fairly common clause in final agreements (which many posters here have)
                  Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-23-2015, 07:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
                    Precisely. This was not the judges intention for status quo. The judge even wrote in the mobility clause "to ensure an effective status quo in (this city).

                    ...

                    It's like I know what she's up to but can't do anything about it. Like some posters state .. none of my business (until she moves because she built status quo)? When does that become my business .. when D4 is 2.5 hours away instead of 15 minutes in a mtl school?

                    At least with a a clause of her providing me courtesy notification that she was leaving the province .. I would know exactly how often. But then again .. who says she would give that notification.
                    Well, you know your ex is blatantly disregarding setting a status quo in Ontario. Even without being notified by her, can you work on accumulating evidence to use in court later? Photographs of her packed car when you drop off the child? Journaling where the child says she was when with your ex? Maybe others have some suggestions for how you can prove to a judge how often your ex goes to Quebec.

                    Your next chance to modify the agreement is your trial, isn't it? So you can't ask for a courtesy notification clause in advance of that, can you? Or is there some way to get before a judge sooner because your ex is already defying the interim order by not honouring the order to create status quo in Ontario? These are questions for your lawyer because I don't know the answers.

                    Surely, you can put in your evidence that the mother brings the child to Quebec every access, instead of building status quo in Ontario. Then your ex either denies your evidence by lying and saying she stays in Ontario, in which case there are no issues with status quo and you should have equal access in Ontario. Or she confirms your evidence and tells the truth and admits that she and the child spend all their time in Quebec, in which case you point out that she has once again been unreasonable, has ignored the interim order for establishing status quo in Ontario, clearly continues to try to remove you from your daughter's life, and custody should therefore go to you in Ontario with only EoW access to her in Quebec.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Your next chance to modify the agreement is your trial, isn't it? So you can't ask for a courtesy notification clause in advance of that, can you?
                      To be honest I was just going to ask ex. I don't want any implied consent that I was okay with her building a new status quo in QC.
                      Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                      Well, you know your ex is blatantly disregarding setting a status quo in Ontario. Even without being notified by her, can you work on accumulating evidence to use in court later?
                      Evidence is the tough part. I have D4 telling me she's always in QC .. never sleeps at home. I cant resort to anything stalkerish .. nor would I.

                      The only real way is to get her bank statements. That would prove she was always there .. as would her phone records. The burden of proof is key here...but it doesnt seem to easy to acquire.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Or she confirms your evidence and tells the truth and admits that she and the child spend all their time in Quebec, in which case you point out that she has once again been unreasonable, has ignored the interim order for establishing status quo in Ontario, clearly continues to try to remove you from your daughter's life, and custody should therefore go to you in Ontario with only EoW access to her in Quebec.
                        Your wording is impeccable. The above would be a logical response and pretty much exactly how I would address it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
                          Of course it is. Never a dull moment with you McDreamy
                          Stop with the personal attacks. Your bullying won't silence me.
                          Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
                            Stop with the personal attacks. Your bullying won't silence me.
                            Where were you bullied or attacked personally? Because I said "never a dull moment"?

                            False allegations should be frowned upon not only in family law .. but on these forums as well.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              are you done editing?
                              Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Fixed a spelling error. Nobody's perfect. I'll try harder next time sorry. Do you have any advice? If not ... there are many other threads

                                McDreamy .. I would kindly ask that you keep this thread on track. Name calling (bully) and false accusations have no place here.

                                Moving on ....

                                It seems judges really value good parenting plans.

                                This 2015 case https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...5onsc5129.html

                                A very good 2015 read whereby the judge loved the fathers parenting plan:

                                which included the clause:
                                Both Timothy and Alana shall provide each other a detailed itinerary of any trips or planned vacations at least seven days before the commencement of travel, including location, travel arrangements and accommodation, as well as telephone numbers Madison can be contacted at during the vacation.
                                Glad to see judges are still agreeing this clause in 2015 .. and that it doesn't automatically make the parent aggressive or controlling.
                                Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-24-2015, 10:01 PM.

                                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