Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Children's Law Reform Act - Section 26 - Delay

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

  • Children's Law Reform Act - Section 26 - Delay

    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
    Last edited by logicalvelocity; 03-04-2006, 10:09 AM.

  • #2
    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

    Comment


    • #3
      here is another one - Family Law Act

      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.
      Last edited by logicalvelocity; 03-04-2006, 11:12 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          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