Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Infant Access and Breastfeeding

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by quake
    Jeff

    I am about to bring a motion for an increase in access. I am self-represented.
    I read somewhere on your site that you offer a service of completing the necessary forms such as affidavits writing. Do you still offer this service.
    Yes, see:
    http://www.ottawadivorce.com/unbundled.htm

    Call Lindsay [1-888-832-2456] if you're interested.

    Originally posted by quake
    This will be the first motion. My daughter's access time is limited with myself. 1-4:30 on Saturday. 1/2 hr is spent traveling to the mall back and forth.
    I think that you're doing the right thing going back to court. Really, your situation can't get worse and is most likely to get better at a motion.

    Originally posted by quake
    I travel 2 hours for this visit each way. The visit occurs occurs in malls with considerable expense.

    I understand a gradual approach to increase access is the way to go but I do not think that spending 8 hours in a mall with a child is appropriate. I do not want my daughter to think and believe that I live in this mall. I want to be able to bring my daughter to my residence which is about 160 km away.
    I feel it is my daughter's right to know me as who I really am.
    A lot will depend on the judge you're before. Some judges won't think twice about a child that age driving for 2 hours; other judges will think that's way too long. In any event, 4 hours of driving in a day on a regular basis does seem too long when the drive can be broken up into 2 separate days if your daughter spends the night with you.

    Some things to emphasise to the judge:
    -you're commitment to your daughter driving 4 hours every week just to see her for 3 hours
    -importance of close relationship with daughter for her well-being
    -principle of maximum contact with each parent
    -importance of being involved in daily routine of daughter (e.g. feeding her, getting her ready for bed, getting her up in the morning) vs. being a "disneyland" dad who only goes to the mall with her
    -address concerns re long car trip up front - explain to judge plans to keep her entertained - maybe bring a family member to help on the journey or have some sort of entertainment (e.g. dvds) for your daughter
    -make sure you explain to the judge what facilities you have at your new place

    Originally posted by quake
    I visited the court house and they told me that I need a factum for my affidavit and motion. I am not sure exactly what that is. I have considerable exhibits to add to my affidavit.
    A factum is basically a summary of the legal argument and cases you're relying on for your motion. There's a specific format that needs to be followed.

    I'd double check to ensure that a factum is really needed. The Family Law Rules don't require it, but there may be a local practice direction where you live.

    I don't know all the details of your case obviously, but the law in most child custody cases is quite simple: the best interests of the child. There's not too much more you could put in your factum. So, unless there's a local practice direction that requires a factum, I don't think it makes sense to do one.

    I'd look through the article you cited at:
    http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/s...40&postcount=4
    and get a copy of all the cases in there that are favourable to you - in particular cases where children approximately your daughter's age was allowed overnight or other extended access. You could put all these cases together in what is known as a "case book" and serve this on your wife's lawyer and file it with the court. Then, at the motion, you'd be able to go through these cases with the judge and explain how they're similar to your case.

    I do think that you should also ask for an assessment (preferable) or the Children's Lawyer. If you're successful at this motion, it's a distinct possibility that in the future your ex will claim that your daughter is reacting badly to the long drive. It would be helpful if there were a neutral third party to evaluate that claim (as well as deal with a lot of the other issues you raise).
    Ottawa Divorce

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Jeff
      A factum is basically a summary of the legal argument and cases you're relying on for your motion. There's a specific format that needs to be followed.

      I'd double check to ensure that a factum is really needed. The Family Law Rules don't require it, but there may be a local practice direction where you live.
      My lawyer told me that the factum is the most important document at a motion. The courts are crowded on motion days and a Judge may find having 15 cases before him/her that day and they don't have time to read through all the material so they rely on the factum and oral arguments. Perhaps this is only the practice in my area. It's actually is a scary thought that the Judges aren't reading through all the material.

      Comment


      • #18
        Factum - Family law cases in Ontario

        Came across the bulletin practice direction for family law cases on motions in Ontario.

        http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/super...procedures.htm

        SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

        PRACTICE DIRECTION

        Civil and Family Motions Procedures
        For the information of counsel and parties, the following standards apply within all judicial regions of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario for motions in civil and family proceedings:

        Factums are required for long civil motions and encouraged for all other motions unless otherwise directed by a judge; and,

        Factums or Summaries of Argument under subrule 17(8) of the Family Law Rules are required for all long family motions unless otherwise directed by a case conference judge; and,

        No factum or Summary of Argument may exceed 20 pages, unless leave is granted; and,

        The times for service and filing of factums or Summaries of Argument shall be in accordance with the times for service and filing of other motions materials respectively under the Rules of Civil Procedure or the Family Law Rules.

        The following chart sets out the times for short and long motions for civil and family proceedings in each judicial region:

        REGIONS SHORT MOTIONS LONG MOTIONS
        Central East: Civil, Family Under 2 hours Over 2 hours
        Central South: Civil, Family Under 1 hour Over 1 hour
        Central West: Civil, Family Under 1 hour Over 1 hour
        East: Civil, Family Under 1 hour Over 1 hour*
        North East: Civil, Family Under 1 hour Over 1 hour
        North West: Civil, Family Under 2 hours Over 2 hours
        South West: Civil, Family Under 1/2 hour Over 1/2 hour
        Toronto: Civil, Family Under 2 hours Over 2 hours

        * Some locations have an additional “lengthy” category for long family motions more than 2 hours.

        Additional information, such as contact names and telephone numbers for court locations within a particular judicial region, and to obtain further details, may be found on the Ontario Courts website on the Superior Court of Justice section at the following internet address:

        http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/

        Osgoode Hall
        August 26, 2005

        Heather J. Smith
        Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Ontario

        and also this webpage that deals with family motions

        http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/super...ilychart.htm#E

        Comment


        • #19
          Quake,

          After reading your thread, I realized that I read a similar case at CANLaw in regards to infant access and spending considerable time traveling.

          Interesting case you may want to consider using this jurisprudence as Jeff suggested

          http://www.canlii.org/sk/cas/skqb/2002/2002skqb518.html

          In paragraphs 6 to 10

          Quote

          [5] The father, age 28, lives on his quarter section farm near Kenaston, Saskatchewan. The mother is 32 years of age and lives with the child in Radville, Saskatchewan, a driving time of three hours from the father's home. At the time of the child's birth, the mother lived in Saskatoon, an hour's drive from the father's home. The mother says that following the child's birth, the father dropped into her home once a week for a half hour visit with her and the child. She says he spent most of the time visiting her. Since she moved to Radville, she drives the child to Regina on Friday and Sunday every second weekend for a visit with his father which, she says, lasts only a couple of hours. She is amenable to a progressive extension of time for each visit but initially was opposed to overnight access because the father has no experience looking after children. She also believes overnight separation from her would distress the child. However, during summation, her counsel indicated she was amenable to some overnight access but does not want the child taken to the father's home because she believes his well is contaminated with bacteria and E. coli.


          [6] The father says the mother limited his contact with the child to one hour per week, depriving him of the opportunity to bond with the child. He attempted unsuccessfully to negotiate more contact through a mediator. Since the move to Radville, the father says he has been allowed only four one-hour visits in a Regina shopping mall.

          [7] In May, 2002 the father prepared a rather detailed specific parenting plan which placed the child in his care for four hours twice a week until the child turns two. Thereafter, he proposed alternating weekends and two-week vacation periods twice a year and equal sharing of Christmas and other holiday time. This is somewhat different from the alternating weekend access he now seeks. It was made when the mother was living in Saskatoon. No doubt the greater distance between the parents' homes has persuaded him that his original proposal is somewhat unworkable.


          [8] The father dismisses the mother's fear that the child will be distressed by change of his overnight caregiver. He presented an article by Joan B. Kelly and Michael E. Lamb published in Using Child Development Research to Make Appropriate Custody and Access Decisions for Young Children, Family and Conciliation Courts Review, Vol. 38, No. 3, July 2002, 297-311 at pages 308-309:

          The extent to which infants and toddlers can tolerate separation from significant attachment figures is related to their age, temperament, cognitive development, social experience, and the presence of older siblings. Aside from their very immature cognitive capacities, infants have no sense of time to help them understand separations, although their ability to tolerate longer separations from attachment figures increases with age. The goal of any access schedule should be to avoid long separations from both parents to minimize separation anxiety and to have sufficiently frequent and broad contact with each parent to keep the infant secure, trusting, and comfortable in each relationship.

          Preschool children can tolerate lengthier separations than toddlers can, and many are comfortable with extended weekends in each parent's home as well as overnights during the week. In general, however, most preschool children become stressed and unnecessarily overburdened by separations from either parent that last more than 3 or 4 days. The exception might be planned vacations, in which parents and siblings are fully available to engage preschool children in novel, stimulating, and pleasurable activities. Even so, most parents would be advised to limit vacations at this age to 7 days and to schedule several vacations rather than one single lengthy vacation.


          This quotation was cited and approved by McIntyre J. in Cooper v. Cooper, [2002] S.J. No. 226 (QL)(Q.B.) when he granted a father weekend access to a one-year old.


          [9] I am concerned about the impact on a one-year old child of an access order that subjects him to six hours of highway travel every time he is delivered into the care of his father. Unfortunately, it cannot be avoided. If the access is to be meaningful and beneficial to the child, it must be exercised as the father sees fit. It must take place in a surrounding that is comfortable for both father and son; a place where the father can behave in a spontaneous and relaxed manner. Only then can the child know his father. That will not happen if contact with the father is limited to a few hours in a Wal-Mart mall.

          [10] I am satisfied that alternate weekend access is appropriate in this case, although not for the length of time suggested by the father. To begin, his access should be from Saturday morning to Sunday evening twice a month. The mother should share the transportation burden by delivering the child to the father in Regina and picking him up there when he is returned. It would, therefore, be convenient to her if Daniel's access weekends coincided with the weekends the mother takes her older child to Regina for visits with his father. Time of delivery to the father and return to the mother will have to be worked out by the parties to their mutual convenience. There will be an order accordingly. If the visits go well, Daniel's time with his father should be extended, perhaps commencing on Friday. Hopefully, the parties can work this out themselves, together with such things as holiday and special events access.

          I will think about your situation further and see if I can recal some jurisprudence that may be similar to your circumstance.

          Comment


          • #20
            Quake,

            I looked up Cooper v. Cooper the case cited by Baird v. Webb where extended access was granted to a 1 year old child.

            http://www.canlii.org/sk/cas/skqb/2002/2002skqb151.html

            Paragraphs 6 to 10

            [6] Since the October order the respondent has exercised regular access. As previously noted, there has been no overnight access involving Ryan. The petitioner remains opposed to overnight access at this time. The respondent says he is capable of looking after Ryan and proposes access, including Ryan, from Thursday to Sunday on alternate weekends. The respondent fails to appreciate that the primary issue is not whether he is capable of looking after Ryan but whether, given Ryan’s age and stage of development, separation from his primary attachment figure, the petitioner, for a period of three days, including three overnights, is appropriate.



            [7] Joan B. Kelly and Michael E. Lamb, in Using Child Development Research to Make Appropriate Custody and Access Decisions for Young Children, Family and Conciliation Courts Review, Vol. 38, No. 3, July 2000, 297-311 observe at pp. 308-309:


            The extent to which infants and toddlers can tolerate separation from significant attachment figures is related to their age, temperament, cognitive development, social experience, and the presence of older siblings. Aside from their very immature cognitive capacities, infants have no sense of time to help them understand separations, although their ability to tolerate longer separations from attachment figures increases with age. The goal of any access schedule should be to avoid long separations from both parents to minimize separation anxiety and to have sufficiently frequent and broad contact with each parent to keep the infant secure, trusting, and comfortable in each relationship.


            Preschool children can tolerate lengthier separations than toddlers can, and many are comfortable with extended weekends in each parent's home as well as overnights during the week. In general, however, most preschool children become stressed and unnecessarily overburdened by separations from either parent that last more than 3 or 4 days. The exception might be planned vacations, in which parents and siblings are fully available to engage pre-school children in novel, stimulating, and pleasurable activities. Even so, most parents would be advised to limit vacations at this age to 7 days and to schedule several vacations rather than one single lengthy vacation.


            [8] Earlier in the article the authors address prior opinions which suggested that overnight access for infants six to eighteen months is less then desirable and may not be appropriate until three years of age. The authors observed that such guidelines were unnecessarily restrictive and not based on child development research and reflected an outdated view of parent-child relationships.



            [9] I do not take issue with the petitioner's view that up until now overnight access with Ryan may not have been appropriate, apart from the issue of breastfeeding. Ryan was born in March, 2001. The parties separated in May, 2001. As a result of the distance which separates the parties, the respondent's opportunity to bond and form attachments with Ryan were more restricted than if the parties had lived in closer proximity to each other. In those circumstances, it would seem appropriate that there would be an opportunity for the respondent and Ryan to develop their relationship. The respondent has exercised regular access and the material does not indicate to me that Ryan has not bonded with his father such that the commencement of overnight access would be inappropriate. At the same time, I am not satisfied that three consecutive overnights would be appropriate at this stage.


            [10] With respect to overnight access involving Ryan, the parties would do well to head the following observations of Kelly and Lamb at p. 307:


            When there are overnights, it is not crucial that the two residential beds or environments be the same, as infants adapt quickly to these differences. It may be more important that feeding and sleep routines be similar in each household to ensure stability. Thus, parents should share information about bed times and rituals, night awakenings, food preferences and feeding schedules, effective practices for soothing, illnesses, and changes in routine as the child matures....

            In paragraph 18 a) ii) of the Judgement

            ORDER



            [18] (a) The respondent shall have reasonable access upon reasonable notice, such access to include:


            (ii) With respect to Ryan, every second weekend from Thursday afternoon to no later than 6:00 p.m. Friday, and again from Saturday afternoon to no later than 6:00 p.m. Sunday;

            Comment


            • #21
              Came across another jurisprudence case that deals with infant access

              http://www.canlii.org/sk/cas/skqb/2003/2003skqb208.html

              Huffman v. Kuffner

              19 month old child

              IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH

              (FAMILY LAW DIVISION)

              JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON



              BETWEEN:



              DARRELL MARCEL HUFFMAN

              PETITIONER



              - and -



              ALLISON JOAN KUFFNER

              RESPONDENT





              D. J. Fisher for the petitioner



              P. A. Tondevold for the respondent







              FIAT R. S. SMITH J.



              May 2, 2003







              [1] The parties had a relatively brief relationship, between the spring of 1999 and April, 2002, which resulted in the birth of their son, Aza John Huffman, born September 18, 2001. This application focuses on the establishment of a parenting schedule for the child.



              [2] To their respective credit, the parties have reached agreement on a number of significant issues being joint custody, child support and s. 7 expenses. The point still in debate is the settling of the parenting time with the child.



              [3] It should be noted that Aza is 19 months old. The child’s tender years are a significant factor in determining parenting times. It is important that the child have an opportunity to bond with each parent, however, at the same time disruption to a toddler’s schedule should be kept to a minimum.


              [4] The petitioner father is off work every Friday, Saturday and Sunday and therefore proposes that he see the child from Thursday at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. every weekend. The respondent mother is supportive of the petitioner maintaining and nurturing a relationship with Aza, but favours a reduced regimen of parenting time.



              [5] It is important for the parties to remember that court-ordered provisions respecting parenting time are never written in stone. The provisions respecting access/parenting time will develop and expand just as the parents’ relationship with the child Aza will do.


              [6] At this juncture, I conclude that the petitioner father’s request for overnight access from Thursday at 6:00 to Sunday at 6:00 every week is too much, bearing in mind the child’s age. Having said that, there is no question the petitioner father has demonstrated a real commitment to Aza and that it is important to nourish that relationship. Accordingly, I make the following orders:


              1. That the petitioner, Darrell Marcel Huffman, be declared the father of the child Aza John Huffman, born September 18, 2001 pursuant to s. 43(2) of The Children’s Law Act, 1997, S.S. 1997, c. C-8.2.



              2. That there shall be interim joint custody of the petitioner and the respondent with respect to the child, Aza.



              3. That the petitioner, with the concurrence of both parties, shall pay, pursuant to the Federal Child Support Guidelines [Divorce Act Regulations, SOR/97-175], interim monthly child support in the amount of $137 which is based on an annual income of $18,000.



              4. That the petitioner shall, in addition, pay s. 7 day care costs of $262.50 per month based on his bearing a 75% share of that cost, for a total monthly obligation of $399.50 which, with the consent of the parties, I round to $400 per month.



              5. The child support payments shall commence May 1, 2003 and the petitioner father shall be relieved of the s. 7 day care costs for the summer months of July and August.



              6. The petitioner shall forthwith take all steps to include, to the extent available, the child Aza as a beneficiary under any employee benefits the petitioner has available to him.



              7. The primary residence of the child Aza shall be with the respondent mother. The petitioner’s parenting time with the child shall be:



              (i) every second weekend from Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m., commencing Friday, May 9, 2003, said overnight access to be exercised at the petitioner’s parents’ home;


              (ii) in those weeks where there is no weekend access, starting the week of May 11, 2003, the petitioner shall have parenting time with Aza two nights per week (Monday to Thursday), the precise two nights to be determined in the petitioner’s discretion from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.


              (iii) the petitioner shall be responsible for the picking up and returning of Aza during his periods of parenting time. It is hoped, but I do not make it an order, that to the extent possible the petitioner’s parents can be part of the process of retrieving and returning Aza to the respondent mother.



              [7] I decline to make any order as to costs.

              Comment


              • #22
                And another

                http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc12842.html

                SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO


                RE: Sylwia Monika Szczecina v. Dariusz Piotr Piatek


                BEFORE: Belleghem J.



                COUNSEL: Alan M. Zuker, for the Petitioner (Wife)



                Jane A. Connon, for the Respondent (Husband)





                E N D O R S E M E N T


                [1] This is a bitter custody dispute over the parties’ nine month old daughter. The mother is expecting their second child.

                [2] An order was made by Dunn J. in the Ontario Court of Justice on March 10, 2003, granting custody to the father who is a medical doctor.

                [3] The order was stayed pending a motion in the Superior Court in the divorce action. That motion came on before me and the issue of jurisdiction was argued. I advised counsel that I would reserve on the issue of jurisdiction and hear the matter on the merits.

                [4] I have reviewed the material and considered counsels’ submissions.

                [5] I agree with the disposition made by Dunn J. in this matter on March 10.

                [6] The most significant aspect of this dispute is that the mother has a demonstrated history of denying access of the daughter to her father. Her position seems to be that because the child is “of tender years” and that she has been the primary caregiver that there should be no access by the child to her father.

                [7] At the present time, the only way that access of the child by both parents can be guaranteed in the short term is if the order of Dunn J. in the Ontario Court is complied with. Accordingly, I am assuming jurisdiction pursuant to the Divorce Act and making an order in precisely the same terms as the order of Dunn J. of March 10, 2003. The order in the Superior Court will be an interim interim order pending an opportunity of the parties to cross-examine and provide the court with better and more updated material. Once that has been done, the court will be in a better position to determine the issue of interim custody.

                [8] My expectation is that once there has been a demonstrated compliance by the mother with the order of Dunn J. that it would be appropriate for the subsequent interim order to contemplate true joint custody. Joint custody has been shown to be more effective when there is some degree of cooperation between the parties and when they have managed to sublimate their personal concerns in favour of those of the child. If this is demonstrated over the next two or three months, then I see no reason, given the background of the parties, that an interim joint custody order could not be made. If a joint custody order proves successful on an interim basis then I see no reason why there could not be a final joint custody order.

                [9] The parties’ present affidavit material is hyperbolic. Their actions and comments towards each other demonstrates the acuteness of the present dispute. Once a regime is put in place respecting the child’s welfare and once the regime is complied with, I anticipate that the rhetoric should die down and the ultimate long term interests of the parties’ child should prevail.

                [10] In the result, therefore, an interim interim order will issue granting custody to the father. If mother creates difficulty in turning the child over to the father than the Peel Regional Police are requested to assist in locating and apprehending the child for delivery to the father.

                [11] Dr. Piatek should show a high degree of reasonableness in working out the access issues with Isabelle’s mother. Accordingly, access to the mother will be by agreement failing which mother will have access alternate weekends commencing March 28, 2003, from Fridays at noon to Mondays at noon. The motions are otherwise adjourned to April 28th, 2003, at 10:00 a.m.


                ___________________________

                BELLEGHEM J.

                DATE: March 19, 2003

                Comment


                • #23
                  Maximizing Contact CLR and Divorce Act

                  Came across this jurispridence.

                  Children's Law Reform Act Ontario does not have specific language in regards to maximizing contact between parent and child where as the Divorce Act Canada does, this case recognizes that it is the best interest of the child to maximize contact under the Children's Law Reform Act.

                  It can be noted the the youngest child in this case was under 3 years of age

                  http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/oncj/2005/2005oncj319.html

                  MIKE EASTON,

                  Applicant,



                  — AND —



                  JODY-LYNN McAVOY,

                  Respondent.

                  Before Justice Yvon Renaud

                  Heard on 24 November 2005

                  Reasons for Judgment released on 30 November 2005

                  CUSTODY OF CHILD — Best interests of child — Other unenumerated circumstances of child — Principle of maximum contact — Unless there are strong and cogent reason for doing otherwise, court should make interim order that allows children to have meaningful and maximum contact with each parent — Principle of maximum contact is specifically recognized in subsection 16(10) of federal Divorce Act but not mentioned in Children’s Law Reform Act (Ont.) — Nevertheless, this principle can be readily extracted from various “best interest” factors listed in provincial statute and must be considered in court’s evaluation of children’s best interests.

                  Paragraphs 24, 25 and 26

                  [24] In matters of interim custody, upon the court’s weighing all the evidence, although conflicting, and taking into account the legislated factors mentioned above, the interim order should, unless there is strong and cogent reason for doing otherwise, seek to permit the children to have meaningful and maximum contact with each parent.

                  [25] Subsection 16(10) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3 [as amended], gives statutory recognition to this principle:


                  (10) Maximum contact.— In making an order under this section, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact.



                  [26] Although this principle does not finds its expression in the Children’s Law Reform Act, it stands to reason that this factor must be considered in the court’s analysis of the best interests of the children and moreover, this principle may quite easily be inferred from the factors listed in section 24.


                  Resulting order

                  ORDER
                  [61] On an interim basis, this court orders that:


                  Care and Control


                  1.
                  The children Jesse McAvoy-Wageman (born on 10 September 1996), Keegan McAvoy-Wageman (born on 4 September 1997) and Hannah Easton (born on 8 February 2003) shall be in the care and control of both the father Mr. Easton and the mother Ms. McAvoy, with Mr. Easton to have the sole care of the children from Saturday at 3:00 p.m. to Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. and Ms. McAvoy to have the sole care of the children from Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. to Saturday at 3:00 p.m.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Intersting case on access

                    Child is 14 months old at time of hearing

                    http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/oncj/2005/2005oncj238.html

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Came across more jurisprudence; Ontario 2004 March

                      SCHMIDT v. HALEY

                      http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/20...onsc10739.html


                      Child is 22 months old and travel involved - custody and access, amendment of pleadings to include claim of sole custody subsequent failing that joint custody, Judicial determination that access travel 45 minutes each way on QEW is not quality time. Variance of spousal support.

                      J. Kelly, M. Lamb report referred to as evidence

                      Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

                      honorable Justice Matheson

                      "[11] I believe that it is in the best interests of the child, whatever the age, that the child has as much access as possible to each parent, as long as there is a fixed routine.

                      [12] I accept the comments made by Joan B. Kelly and Michael E. Lamb in their article “Using Child Development Research to Make Appropriate Custody and Access Decisions for Young Children”. This is found in Family and Conciliation Courts Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, July 2000 297-311 at page 300:

                      “The empirical literature also shows that infants and toddlers need regular interaction with both of their parents to foster and maintain their attachments. Extended separations from either parent are undesirable because they unduly stress developing attachment relationships. In addition, it is necessary for the interactions with both parents to occur in a variety of contexts (feeding, playing, diapering, soothing, putting to bed, etc.) to ensure that the relationships are consolidated and strengthened.”



                      [13] I feel that the present access by the respondent to the child must be altered. In my opinion, there is too much time on the Queen Elizabeth Highway--some 40 minutes each way in the back seat of a car is not quality time.

                      [14] Therefore pending the trial or further order of the Court, the access by the respondent father will be as follows:

                      (a) Each Wednesday the respondent shall have the child from 4.30 p.m. until Thursday at 8.30 a.m.

                      (b) Alternate Fridays from 4.30 p.m. until Sunday at 10.00 a.m. This will start on April 2, 2004.

                      (c) Alternate Fridays from 4.30 p.m. until Saturday at 11.00a.m. This will start on March 26, 2004.

                      [15] Transportation shall be the responsibility of the respondent.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        late getting back to this thread.. sorry..

                        Could you go through christmas without seeing your children? I never got to see my daughter at eatser,thansgiving, father's day birthdays christmas - reason being is that holidays means nothing to my daughter even though her mother celebrated it with her.
                        I'm sure that was difficult for you, and I do sympathize; did she not even allow you to come and spend those holidays with her present? Why? Did she give a reason? After all, you could be with her and the child, and it would still allow her to breastfeed, right?

                        How would you like your child's belated christmas present thrown in your face during an access drop off ? That is what her mother did to me saying WE Don't want that here! My daughter did see the behaviour.
                        Sorry that happened to you; she certainly took the immature road there! As for how I would like it, not at all, but I got the opposite side of it.. my children have yet to get any presents from their father, because he will not give them gifts for any occassion unless he can see them without supervision, and has flat-out told me that anything they are given by him is not "allowed" to come to "my" house.

                        Breastfeeding was an issue however she isn't breastfeeding.
                        Are you certain of that? It is rare for breastfeeding to continue to that age, so I suspect there's a good chance you're right, but without being able to show it in court, you may not be able to present that as anything more than your opinion.

                        No regards is given to the fact that she is a chronic smoker smoking over a pack of cigarettes every day. It is a known fact that the toxins from smoking flow through the breast milk into the child.
                        And so it shouldn't be, unless you are trying to argue that you should have sole custody of the child, on the basis that you're arguing she's an unfit mother for breastfeeding while she's smoking. Presumably, she was a smoker when you impregnated her, so whether you have objections to that now or not, the court isn't likely to look at her smoking as a serious concern of yours, but rather mud-slinging.

                        The Judge told her to increase access every 4 months. Since then {last March} there has been no increase.
                        If this was in a court order, she's breeched it.

                        I have requested over and over again for information pertaining to my daughter's health and welfare. There is even a court order in place.
                        Still no co-operation and she ignores my requests.
                        The Judge told her she was breaking the law.
                        This will come back to haunt her.. keep requesting the information.

                        Another problem rests with the DR. He will not disclose any information pertaining to my daughter due to fact I have no form of custody.
                        Ask that this be specified in your court order; you have a right to that information, until it is ruled otherwise.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Jeff
                          Some judges won't think twice about a child that age driving for 2 hours; other judges will think that's way too long. In any event, 4 hours of driving in a day on a regular basis does seem too long when the drive can be broken up into 2 separate days if your daughter spends the night with you.
                          Jeff, would a judge weigh the 4 hours of driving against the need for the child to be taken to the Dad's home? In other words, could a judge end up saying that the Dad is choosing to spend four hours of 'his' time driving, when he could reasonably spend it with the child if he chose not to take her to his home? I'm asking based on my situation, actually, where the father has said it's not worth his time to see the kids at all, unless he can take them overnight; not necessarily the same situation, I grant you.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            My heart breaks for you and your children. I had the exact same thing happen to me. Breastfeeding was the first weapon used against me by my ex to take the kids. For our first child, the baby would not latch. So we, yup, WE, (I was there at every appointment), spent weeks at lactation consultants, practicing with feeding tubes, etc. Lots of coaching and help by me. We all worked with the health nurse. Finally the baby latched. We bought very expensive pumping equipment to keep the milk going and to prepare for the transition to bottle. My ex pumped from day one. We stored lots of milk. After much discussion and joint decision, at six months, she transition off breastfeeding and we both night fed, etc. On the second child we started the same way. Then we separated. Well, did everything change. First thing my ex stated was that she was breastfeeding until she felt like stopping. Second thing she did was give away our expensive pumping equipment. You see where this is all heading. The next is I get letters and affidavits stating how could I take this breastfeeding baby away from the mother. The baby by this time is now 12 months old. BTW, I only found out she had stopped breastfeeding months before was from a friend of a friend. So this was totally planned maliciousness with nothing to do with the best interests of the child.

                            And all through this the courts, society and even lawyers sided with her. So we had one child that we worked together, shared the responsibility and was better off for having both parents (and both parents were better off having each other for support), the next child is used as a weapon. Taken from one parent, during crutial bonding periods for no reason except for revenge and punishment.

                            Sorry, I do not have any help for you right now. I’ll have to think about this one.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              That is very horrible, I have never had trouble with who has custody of my kids, but I can barely imagine how painful it must be. Hopefully you will get more time with your child, once the court sees that your ex can't possibly be breast feeding anymore. Some women do the most selfish and horrible things, have strength.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Remember breastfeeding only lasts a very short time, time will tell after that if she really is using that for access.
                                She can't use that one forever.

                                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