Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

logicalvelocity · #1 03-04-2006, 10:07 AM

This is interesting enough. From what I read here, A hearing is to be held within 6 months of custody or access to a child for custody and access issues for claims brought forth under the CLR Act Ont.

Children's Law Reform Act R.S.O. 1990 c. C.12

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/S...c12_e.htm#BK23

Delay

26. (1) Where an application under this Part in respect of custody of or access to a child has not been heard within six months after the commencement of the proceedings, the clerk or local registrar of the court shall list the application for the court and give notice to the parties of the date and time when and the place where the court will fix a date for the hearing of the application. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 26 (1).

Directions

(2) At a hearing of a matter listed by the clerk or local registrar in accordance with subsection (1), the court by order may fix a date for the hearing of the application and may give such directions in respect of the proceedings and make such order in respect of the costs of the proceedings as the court considers appropriate. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 26 (2).

Early date

(3) Where the court fixes a date under subsection (2), the court shall fix the earliest date that, in the opinion of the court, is compatible with a just disposition of the application. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 26 (3).

Discussion

If a hearing is to be held within the alloted time, and if this does not occur, the Registar is responsible for scheduling a hearing on custody/access issues.

How can one party claim status quo if the other party is waiting for due process. It seems to me that the process in itself creates status quo situations.

Who's rights are violated. After all it is a law

hubby · #2 03-04-2006, 12:06 PM

I guess that be why until a seperation agreement is nailed down outlining all the issues that BOTH parties do not leave the matrimonial home. I know, in some situations, easy said than done.

You bring up an interesting point LogicalVelocity ... maybe you and DecentDad should modify the laws or at least give some input into them ... heck, all people should have an opinion. Who is to say that our lawmakers know whats best ... after all, they are human just like the next person.

Hubby

logicalvelocity · #3 03-04-2006, 11:10 PM

Interesting enough

Family Law Act R.S.O. 1990 - c.F.3

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/S...sh/90f03_e.htm

Section 30 and Section 31 subsection 1

Obligation of spouses for support

30. Every spouse has an obligation to provide support for himself or herself and for the other spouse, in accordance with need, to the extent that he or she is capable of doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 30; 1999, c. 6, s. 25 (3); 2005, c. 5, s. 27 (7).

Obligation of parent to support child

31. (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (1); 1997, c. 20, s. 2.

In a determination of custody of a child, the best interest test is used. This is paramount. Under CLR, Both parent's are equally entitled to custody of a child. When competing parenting plans are put forward, why is a working parent parenting plan seen as inferior to that of a non-working parent when the law in itself states that every parent has an obligation to support the child.

Grace · #4 03-05-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logicalvelocity

When competing parenting plans are put forward, why is a working parent parenting plan seen as inferior to that of a non-working parent when the law in itself states that every parent has an obligation to support the child.

LV,

Although the tide is turning in family court we are just not there yet. In Ontario, there is appellate authority that joint custody is to be ordered in exceptional circumstances only and where both parties show ability to co-operate.

The wheels of justice are too slow moving. Hopefully in time all custody orders will be joint, shared parenting.

logicalvelocity · #5 03-05-2006, 11:42 PM

Grace,

yes that is well known appellant opinion. However, regardless of the co-operation or communication or lack there of, Joint custody has been awarded to prevent one parent from being marginalized out of the child's life.

One parent may choose to deliberately not to co-operate to diminish any chance of a joint custodial order of a child from being ordered.

For this reason alone, I recommend that anyone pursuing legal action to ask for sole custody and subsequent failing that Joint custody regime. It covers all bases.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Question on CS and Section 7 Expenses	decent fellow	Financial Issues	4	11-15-2011 01:59 AM
Actually GETTING the Payment for Section 7 Expenses	dazedandconfused2049	Financial Issues	4	10-20-2011 10:15 AM
Changing of the children's last names.	crispy	Divorce & Family Law	15	02-11-2010 10:39 PM
Custody issue	helpme124	Parenting Issues	13	05-31-2006 05:18 PM
Childs Lawyer	gooddadgoingmad	Divorce & Family Law	16	03-31-2006 03:57 PM

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

User CP

New posts

Advertising

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name
Password