It's going to be a hot summer!!

[standing on the sidelines]

Five years! You've been with him five years. Not six months.

As we are all aware, second relationships have a high failure rate. Saying that LF has latched onto another woman and is using her for babysitting because he can't handle it without her isn't a plus in my opinion.

he didn't latch onto her for babysitting..if I remember correctly he moved in with her for financial reasons as he couldn't afford to live in the rental alone on his income.

[LovingFather32]

Both wrong.

I fell deeply in love. I didnt move in with a roommate. I'm sorry if that offends some but it's the truth. Yes, it did help financially .. SOTS is not wrong there .. but it wasnt the reason.

All I know is that I need to thank Jeff (the owner). Im not sure if he knows this but he's assisted a little girl see her dad again by having this wonderful site. His site did what it was designed to do.

Honestly, I hope he is making money off of this somehow. He deserves to be.

Jeff .. if you're reading. Thank you.

[arabian]

I was outside this evening enjoying a few glasses of wine. I come back and log back in and I can't believe the entries on this thread.

I don't know about anyone having multiple accounts (except for that OINK individual who just won't go away). Did I miss something?

We can debate the definition of marriage and whether or not someone has the right to call kids "step-kids" or not but to what end? I could start a thread to say that those of you who don't go to church have no right to celebrate Christmas.

I think that we have to remind ourselves once again to be less judgemental of others. I know this is a big challenge for me (a poster just highlighted her feelings for me a few days ago that I'm a judgemental person). So lets relax and get back to what we are really good at - helping each other get through the worst experience of our lives, namely divorce and child custody.

I think Ontario Daddy had a good question about financial. I know Mr. T. has reiterated the importance of keeping on top of your ex's situation by peppering her lawyer about requirement for full financial disclosure.

[LovingFather32]

I have been with my fiance for over 5 years. Even before we were engaged I called his kids my step kids. I went into my relationship knowing he had kids and fully accepted them. They are no less to me just because they are his kids. They are part of who we are. Married or not. Splitting hairs about being married or not is unnecessary. What about couples who don't get married? Do the kids never become their step kids?

I think showing that the new partner is fully accepting of his daughter and that they are able to make a blended family work, looks good on LF32. It shows he has support, shows he has someone to watch his child if he has to work and shows that D4 is open to having two homes.

Thanks Berner.

You've been with your fiance for 5 years an were calling his kids your step kids even before you were engaged (a lot less than 5 years ago).

Although this could be a whole other thread I have to agree with you.

The other night I took D8 to her school choir try outs. I saw her up there singing her heart out and my eyes suddenly welled up with tears. We'd practiced all week. She sees me as a father figure and I don't mind.

Although I respect everyone's opinions on this I have to agree with Arabian and Berner on this issue.

[LovingFather32]

I think Ontario Daddy had a good question about financial. I know Mr. T. has reiterated the importance of keeping on top of your ex's situation by peppering her lawyer about requirement for full financial disclosure.

Okay, back on track.

Yes, very good questions indeed. The answer is yes. I am requesting full financial disclosure at this motion. I find this particular aspect very important.

[LovingFather32]

Respectfully Disagree

Having a young child within a new/ongoing nasty divorce make incorrect statements can only be seen as a bad thing on LF32's part.

OnDaddy .. I respectfully disagree with the above, as does my lawyer and more than a few posters here.

It's actually seen as a great thing because she is her step sister. We're a family and in it for the long haul. Also, they've known each other over a year now, so we shouldn't talk months anymore IMO.

But I take your post constructively because I can see what you're trying to convey.

[Teenwolf]

Hi Teenwolf. Nice to meet you.

Your first question is a very good one. There has been no stated reason as to why ex is not working. In the OCL report she states that her plans were always to enter D4 in senior kindergarten (not junior) and also that I was always aware of this.

This is BS. We always agreed on J/K. In the OCl report she states "the I will return to work as a paralegal".

One problem, she couldn't find a job here in ON as a paralegal because her education was different. Nobody would hire her outside of QC.

So when she says shes returning to work as a paralegal .. this speaks volumes as to her intentions I would think .. back to QC.

Well, she needs to come up with a valid reason. You need to ask for her income to be imputed.

I see where you’re going with her possible hidden motives. She will keep the D4 out of senior kindergarten, this will give her justification for staying home. She will want to go back to QC in order to work in her trained field.

Personally, I think both reasons are hogwash. I don’t think the court will permit her to go back to QC, but I’m not so sure about the senior kindergarten thing and her staying home.

Unless you got married (in which case congratulations!), you don't have a stepchild either. D4 does not have a step sister.

I’m not sure where you get this idea, but it’s incorrect. People with common law partners that have children from a previous relationship can and do become step-parents. Marriage is not required. Further, some of these step-parents pay CS after the relationship ends.

[LovingFather32]

Good debate! :-)

I respect the respectful debate. Thank you.

Court deals with law. Law says you are not married.
I believe if you include "like a" before mentioning wife/stepdaughter in court, you will achieve your goal. Otherwise you'll be corrected with a tick on your credibility chart.

Actually I've read many cases where judges, such as my motion judge finds it very positive.

For instance, take Peacock v. Greenhead-Peacock, 2007 CanLII 24674 (ON SC)

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc...&resultIndex=9

Here's what the judge thought about our debate here tonight, in family court:

22] In addition, the evidence indicates that Rowan is closely bonded with the Ed O’Neill, the mother’s future husband who has been a father figure for Rowan. The child calls him daddy and he has been very closely involved in Rowan’ s life since January 2006. He also has a good relationship with Kaeli, and both children enjoy the benefits of Mr. O’Neill’s extended family, who they see regularly.

Notice the length of time this new boyfriend was in the picture (2006 - 2007). One Year....maybe not even Same as D8 and I. But no scorning/negativity by the judge .. in fact it was put in a very positive light.

[MrToronto]

Stick to the 4 R's LF32 when in Family Court

RIGHTS......who is in this courtroom today is a parent

RULES....who in this Courtroom today has....best interest of child material...is reasonable parent

RANTING....BLAH BLAH BLAH......and a 1000 more affidavits...and more bulging court briefs...zzzzzz....snore

RESULT

The first 2 R's are critical

and the first R is easy ....because you are already designated as a parent by Goldilocks herself, a lot lately she writes it

What RIGHTS does a parent have? STEP 2.....ALL ....NONE.....JOINT (best)

Where's the parenting plan from parties

2 percent weight will be given to RANTING and delusional special interest groups, OCL's, CAS, Doctors, experts and Jesus freaks

1 percent to interesting presentation with charts that can keep a Judge awake

RESULT....DAD...MOM....JOINT

5th R for oldtimers..... RINSE wash REPEAT

[MrToronto]

I thought Ontario Dad had no idea about the process....just went to a cop shop ...was driven in a police car to a Courthouse were some forms were filled out by a janitor/clerk/Judge (over lunch and a bagel)...and later drove to a shelter in the circus clown police car and collected his/her/it's kid?

What I miss....go to court ..go to court ...go to court

[arabian]

I thought Ontario Dad just had no idea about the process....just went to a cop shop ...was driven in a police car to a Courthouse were some forms were filled out by a Judge (over lunch)...and later drove to a shelter and collected his/her/it's kid?

What I miss

LOL - I have the same feeling. I don't look at this forum for a day and when I log back in there are some pretty interesting statements. One has to work hard to keep up-to-date on here.

[Teenwolf]

Court deals with law. Law says you are not married.

So courts don't hear and award SS and CS in common law partnerships? Canadian family law has progressed to a point where the distinction between marriage and common law is getting smaller and smaller. If you don't believe me, take a look at BC's Family Law Act. They have essentially made common law and marriage the same thing. I think it's only a matter of time before other provinces follow suit.

For those provinces that haven't, they still view common law relationships as families, which have laws to protect those families. And the courts follow those laws.

[stripes]

I respect the respectful debate. Thank you.

Court deals with law. Law says you are not married.
I believe if you include "like a" before mentioning wife/stepdaughter in court, you will achieve your goal. Otherwise you'll be corrected with a tick on your credibility chart.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I have to agree. I've seen this happen. Friend of a friend broke up with wife, then moved in new girlfriend with kid within a few months. Love and moonbeams. New girlfriend and kid showed up in parenting plans as stabilizing factors for friend of friend's kid ("wife" and "stepson"), including on school documents. Relationship unfortunately ended after a year. Friend of friend had to revise a lot of documents, explain a lot of things to a lot of people, and lost credibility.

Moral: if you're actually legally married or have lived together long enough to be be common-law (two years in most places), you can use "wife" or "husband" or "stepchildren", but if not (especially if you're not divorced yet), you've got a "partner" or "significant other" or "boyfriend/girlfriend" or whatever term you want to use, and that person's kids. This doesn't mean that your feelings for each other are not strong, it just means you have to keep the terminology straight so that you sound credible and straightforward.

[MrToronto]

The only reason a Judge would refer to useless case law is the FEAR of setting a new precedent

That the unwashed masses will use against future Judges

Judges are very apt at making every (zillion) cases unique on it's own merits, which means they can find a different smell for the same old bullsh1t

Judges aren't stupid ..they don't need anything POINTED OUT

There just people that dumbed down there JOBs to deal with rich and poor fools that want to waste time and money but their primary goal is to protect there institution and appear fair....to give the impression to the public they have a place for a fair dull hearing on their concerns

The POINT is do you think a antique Judge needs case law they've heard and seen EVERYTHING....save it for a appeal

did we cover Judges don't make new law?

WHO YOU REALLY ARE....PRESENTATION .(RANTING)..pretend a Judge is a 1000 years old .....and try to fool it with something new

It'll slam the gates shuts to protect it's institution so fast (it won't be noticed) it can't be captured on even super slow motion film.

So a Judge determines most times(not if you have pretty much no RIGHTS and failed the RULES along with no parenting plan and a one page court brief) on the 500 pages of earnest heart wrenching prose on who was earnest enuff to write the heaviest material that was" Judge skimmed over"...uhm... didn't read..and if you sat quietly with nice clothes on and zipper up

[dad2bandm]

I believe this is a topic that should be discussed and corrected, as it can cause some unnecessary views of LF32 at court...

...Having gf's daughter still being referred to as sister, when I'm sure she has a lovely name, would show that the situation wasn't corrected yet.

Ex gives LF32 lots to work with. I just don't get it, to turn a situation where LF32 looks good or at least ex looks bad, and turning it into something where they both end up looking bad.

I don't think a judge will care whatsoever about this, and that is the only person who matters. Anyone bringing this up as an issue in court, or trying to put a bad spin on little girls calling each other sisters, would look like a fool in court.

Non-issue.

What if...might not work out...May work out...moving in with other partner may annoy ex... judge doesn't care. They will only want to know current living situation, and who child lives with and interacts with.