Notification and Daycare

[Mother]

Yes, I am convinced, P2 is convinced, based on some facts, not something imaginary.

I am not gonna spray my monitor with my saliva trying to convince you or whatever. I can tell you this: P2 couldn't careless what the partner's income is. What can P2 possibly do with this info? C.S. is not gonna go down even if the new partner gets $200K a year. No excuses are needed. But if the household income is above the required minimum then this family is not eligible for any subsidy. It is designed for the needy people, not for the fraudsters and P2 doesn't want to and will not be a part of it, never, ever. End of story.

All P2 needs is a documented assurance that the subsidy is obtained legally because P2 is on record. So in case someone checks on the subsidy later, they wont' be able to tell this to P2: hey, how come you didn't question how subsidy was obtained? Don't you think it's strange that with the income of $XXK plus $XXXXXX your ex was able to get it? Why did you keep quiet? Is it because it was so convenient for you to pay zero or $xx? We don't believe you knew nothing. Come over here, dear, put your pants down and prepare yourself.

The concern is not the integrity of the childcare subsidy system. The concern is the abuse of this system by someone who wants to involve another person who has nothing to do with this. I am frankly surprised that I have to explain this to you.

Don't you think that P2 would love to pay something close to zero for the daycare but only legally?

Oh, and the dirt about P1's new partner is all over the net, no need to poke nose anywhere. Just click, click, click, read and enjoy!

That's it. To believe it or not is 100% up to your imagination.

[standing on the sidelines]

if you contact who ever gives the subsidy with the information that you have then its up to them to investigate.

[FirstTimer]

I understand the poster's point of view. My mom is exactly like P2. She is a very legit person. She just follows all rules and procedures. That's how she's lived her life...nothing wrong with that.

The underlying problem here it seems is there is no honest disclosure or aka communication between the two and there will never be it seems. This is probably the last straw in terms of what has happening over the past 2 years and in P2's eyes, 2 years of bullsh*t.


So take it to a judge. I don't think you need to convince anyone here except a judge as they are the only ones that can do anything about it.

Is it this a mountain(poster) or an ant hill(P2 and some views on here)?
Present your facts and let a judge decide then.

[Mother]

if you contact who ever gives the subsidy with the information that you have then its up to them to investigate.

Standing, thank you. That's the only way to deal with the situation P2 has, it seems.

[Mother]

I understand the poster's point of view. My mom is exactly like P2. She is a very legit person. She just follows all rules and procedures. That's how she's lived her life...nothing wrong with that.

The underlying problem here it seems is there is no honest disclosure or aka communication between the two and there will never be it seems. This is probably the last straw in terms of what has happening over the past 2 years and in P2's eyes, 2 years of bullsh*t.


So take it to a judge. I don't think you need to convince anyone here except a judge as they are the only ones that can do anything about it.

Is it this a mountain(poster) or an ant hill(P2 and some views on here)?
Present your facts and let a judge decide then.

FirstTimer, thanks for your post.

You are correct on all points. P2 is that way, just wants to live life peacefully. Some things in life are beyond our control, so no need to add to the crap basket. And P1 is the way they are, there is nothing anybody can do about it so unfortunately P2 must deal with whatever P1 puts P2 through when it comes to C4.

As to the last 2 years of P2's life, what can I tell you about it? I'd describe it as LIVING HELL. I am sure folks here can relate.

Starting this thread I just wanted to clarify to some degree (I know it's up to the judge etc), how someone can sue you without disclosing some major documents to the party they are suing.

[FirstTimer]

The advice to you asking about advice here is that in the moment of frustration and stress, we go on here to get some clarity on which direction things will turn out and plan for them and see if anyone has experienced it.

However, you will get only opinions, and those can vary. It might make you feel better but it's not absolute like a judge's court order. Focus on that game.

In regards to your last question, anyone can sue anyone as we are all entitled to due process. It doesn't mean they are going to win. Judging by your character, you wouldn't sue someone without all the facts gathered.

The judicial process is they serve you, you have the right to respond, then they respond, and it goes to court.

However, not everyone is like that. Example, your crazy ex. You guys will end up in front of a judge and the judge will ask the same questions as you. How come you weren't given the information? That doesn't give you the ability to have a fair response which is your right.

It just makes her look bad and goes in your favor.


There is a saying, "Don't interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake".

Based on what you said, P2 is not getting sued, P1 is getting an Emergency Motion to change daycare without consent of P2 hence Emergency.

If she gets it awarded. However, you can also turn around and submit in a vary order to fight the move because you have joint legal custody on decision making as well requesting for information and disclosure. She cannot ignore it once you have a court date, and will have to either give it to you or you both stand in front of a judge.

She doesn't show up, then judge will rule in your favor.....which i doubt she would not show but get my drift here? You probably don't know court processes and rights of BOTH parents.

I didn't either and boy have I learned alot thanks to my ex.

FirstTimer, thanks for your post.

You are correct on all points. P2 is that way, just wants to live life peacefully. Some things in life are beyond our control, so no need to add to the crap basket. And P1 is the way they are, there is nothing anybody can do about it so unfortunately P2 must deal with whatever P1 puts P2 through when it comes to C4.

As to the last 2 years of P2's life, what can I tell you about it? I'd describe it as LIVING HELL. I am sure folks here can relate.

Starting this thread I just wanted to clarify to some degree (I know it's up to the judge etc), how someone can sue you without disclosing some major documents to the party they are suing.

[Mother]

FirstTimer, thank you so much!!! Your response is very helpful, appreciate it!

Yes, P1 is getting an Emergency Motion to change daycare without consent of P2 hence Emergency. However as of the moment I type this P2 didn't get any paperwork from P1's lawyer. Do you know what is the time frame for them to serve P2? Say, P1's lawyer says "we filed an emergency motion and the court date is lets say January 1st". When is the deadline for them to serve P2?

[FirstTimer]

I am not a lawyer but if I assume you are on Ontario? You can read this.

How to Bring a Family Law Motion for a Temporary Order in the Superior Court of Justice | The Law Society of Upper Canada

At least according to this, it is 7 days before trial date minimum. It sounds like this is set out really far......

Typically if she was fair, she would set the date say a week or 2 weeks max from now. However, they are setting it wayyyy in January is because of one simple motive.

Build up status quo. The child will be in that daycare for 3 months, there is no way a judge will take the child out as she will use the same argument as you, he's settled in, made friends etc. He will know the stunt P1 played by delaying it however though he also has to weigh it with the stability of the child's current environment and no Judge will disrupt that. Who knows, you can find there was no subsidy, she has a new bf or whatever she's moving to, whatever the reasons. It won't matter at that point.

You arguments will be meaningless and she got what she wanted which was having full control of where he goes.

I would ask P2 lawyer to not agree with the date and move it up as there is no reason this should be delayed. They are just buying time and it's obvious.

FirstTimer, thank you so much!!! Your response is very helpful, appreciate it!

Yes, P1 is getting an Emergency Motion to change daycare without consent of P2 hence Emergency. However as of the moment I type this P2 didn't get any paperwork from P1's lawyer. Do you know what is the time frame for them to serve P2? Say, P1's lawyer says "we filed an emergency motion and the court date is lets say January 1st". When is the deadline for them to serve P2?

[Mother]

I am not a lawyer but if I assume you are on Ontario? You can read this.

How to Bring a Family Law Motion for a Temporary Order in the Superior Court of Justice | The Law Society of Upper Canada

At least according to this, it is 7 days before trial date minimum. It sounds like this is set out really far......

Typically if she was fair, she would set the date say a week or 2 weeks max from now. However, they are setting it wayyyy in January is because of one simple motive.

Build up status quo. The child will be in that daycare for 3 months, there is no way a judge will take the child out as she will use the same argument as you, he's settled in, made friends etc. He will know the stunt P1 played by delaying it but he has to way that with the stability of the child's current environment and no Judge won't disrupt that.

You arguments will be meaningless at that point and she got what she wanted which was having full control of where he goes. This is the problem with Joint Legal Custody and Primary Residence.

I would ask P2 lawyer to not agree with the date and move it up as there is no reason this should be delayed. They are just buying time and it's obvious.

Thanks for the link, FT!

Yes, P2 is in Ontario.

LOL, January 1st was an example only. The real date is much, much closer and no papers received as yet. Sorry, cannot give you the real date here.

I am reading this page http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.o.../fc/part_8.pdf also has useful info.

FT! Appreciate your help so very much!

Oh, I forgot to mention that C4 is in this current daycare for a number of months already. So status quo is in existence.

[Links17]

I *think* judges attempt to undo illegally obtained status quo maneuvres.....

A lot of the status quos that are discussed here are when people "willingly" move out of the house or retroactively the decision that was made upon full examination at the hearing of merits (i.e: a full hearing) shows that it was the correct course of action.

So if you get to trial and the judge finds the daycare mover was wrong (i.e: the reasons for the move were unacceptable) I believe the judge will attempt to correct that HOWEVER if the reasons for the move are valid but the daycare move just SKIRTED the process of consultation the judge may give a slap on the wrist and remind the person of the responsibility to consult.

My 2c, I can't point to specific cases on the topic but it has been my impression of the general law.

Regarding the fraudulent obtention of subsidy I don't think it should be an issue between divorced couples - how your ex spouse decides to fraud the government is their business HOWEVER I have seen cases where a person who falsely declares income on income tax for example is regarded by the jduge as somebody with less credibility (i.e: you defraud the government why not lie in court?)

[Mother]

Links17, thanks muchly! Valuable observation, thanks for sharing.

PS. Falsely declared income is one thing. Withholding a material change in circumstances is another one. Sorry, cannot be more specific.

[FirstTimer]

Good points Links17. I was trying to point out a worst case scenario so he can prepare for the worst outcome and after reading the countless cases on Canlii, the best case scenario for the parents and child doesn't always prevail. All depending on the judge.

To Mother,

how come you guys aren't fighting for 50/50? P2 seems like a capable parent?

I *think* judges attempt to undo illegally obtained status quo maneuvres.....

A lot of the status quos that are discussed here are when people "willingly" move out of the house or retroactively the decision that was made upon full examination at the hearing of merits (i.e: a full hearing) shows that it was the correct course of action.

So if you get to trial and the judge finds the daycare mover was wrong (i.e: the reasons for the move were unacceptable) I believe the judge will attempt to correct that HOWEVER if the reasons for the move are valid but the daycare move just SKIRTED the process of consultation the judge may give a slap on the wrist and remind the person of the responsibility to consult.

My 2c, I can't point to specific cases on the topic but it has been my impression of the general law.

Regarding the fraudulent obtention of subsidy I don't think it should be an issue between divorced couples - how your ex spouse decides to fraud the government is their business HOWEVER I have seen cases where a person who falsely declares income on income tax for example is regarded by the jduge as somebody with less credibility (i.e: you defraud the government why not lie in court?)

[Mother]

To Mother,

how come you guys aren't fighting for 50/50? P2 seems like a capable parent?

They were fighting but it's over now, based on the OCL report that recommended joint custody with primary residence with P1. P1 refused to accept even gradual increase in the future.

P2 is an excellent parent.

[FirstTimer]

I'm from Alberta, we don't have OCL, but from what I am reading it seems all over the place and is not unbiased.

Safe to say that?

They were fighting but it's over now, based on the OCL report that recommended joint custody with primary residence with P1. P1 refused to accept even gradual increase in the future.

P2 is an excellent parent.

[Mother]

I'm from Alberta, we don't have OCL, but from what I am reading it seems all over the place and is not unbiased.

Safe to say that?

Yes, you are right, OCL is very biased; the problem is - it is very hard to prove to the judge that the report is biased although is not entirely impossible which is proven by some participants on this forum.