Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Common As Dirt - Another Case Record

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by ninehundredt View Post
    I intend to revise this at the yearly review to coincide more with a shared custody arrangement.
    Note that this is very difficult to do and next to impossible to change custody overtime without a valid change in circumstance. That is why it is so important now to build your case and fight for shared custody now.

    Why re-fight for more time and custody down the road which will take years and tons of court time and lawyers fees when you can do it now from the beginning.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Canadaguy View Post
      Note that this is very difficult to do and next to impossible to change custody overtime without a valid change in circumstance. That is why it is so important now to build your case and fight for shared custody now.

      Why re-fight for more time and custody down the road which will take years and tons of court time and lawyers fees when you can do it now from the beginning.
      Perhaps I'm being naive. Why is it so difficult to change an order down the road? What is the point of adding a provision for yearly reviews of the agreement if the court system won't entertain changes to terms? I think a change in the children's age is rationale enough to backup a change to shared custody.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ninehundredt View Post
        Perhaps I'm being naive. Why is it so difficult to change an order down the road? What is the point of adding a provision for yearly reviews of the agreement if the court system won't entertain changes to terms? I think a change in the children's age is rationale enough to backup a change to shared custody.
        Because of the cost and time it takes to change an order. Plus you have to justify that your reason for change (aka kid is older) is better then her reason not to change (aka kid has bond with mom, grew up with schedule, is a custom to it, etc).

        Remember it takes about a year to change a court order. So every year you will be in court changing something for last year.

        It is not easy nor is it cheap.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ninehundredt View Post
          Perhaps I'm being naive. Why is it so difficult to change an order down the road? What is the point of adding a provision for yearly reviews of the agreement if the court system won't entertain changes to terms? I think a change in the children's age is rationale enough to backup a change to shared custody.
          Yearly reviews are normal for changes to CS amounts based on changes in income.

          Reviews for any other change are much harder. Judges don't like to change status quo. Exes don't like to give up time with the children or CS money based on a switch from full table to offset. It would be a big fight every year, and the only people who would benefit are the lawyers you would have to pay. That's why lawyers encourage these sorts of clauses. And believe me, a mother whose starting point is sole custody with only supervised access is going to put up a huge fight every time you try to change anything.

          If you still want to start slow and build to greater access, put stuff in the main separation agreement about how the access begins with alternating weekends and a few hours each evening twice a week and will expand to two overnights a week after one year. Set it up that way from the start instead of trying to change it later. Have only the one fight, where all you are fighting against is your ex's unreasonableness, and not a status quo to overcome on top of that.

          But the only reason I can see for doing that is to humour your ex to try to cajole her into signing it, or if you admit that you are a lesser parent and are afraid to take the children for longer until you get used to it.

          What if your ex had died instead of you guys separating? You'd have to look after the children full time. You can do it half time and it's better for them to see that both their parents are heavily invested in them, not just one of them.

          Comment


          • #20
            That makes sense. In my answer I specified a change in schedule for more visitation (along the lines of 50/50) when child A hits age X, and child B hits age X, but the custody would still be considered 'joint'.

            Ultimately if this is accepted I would get my increased visitation at those specific milestone dates, but the difference would be me still paying full guideline child support, rather than having the opportunity to split it up based on an the altered custody arrangement.

            If I choose to modify my terms at this point, what is the process to do so?

            Comment


            • #21
              At the end of the day you have to decide what you want for your kids.

              Do you want to be an active parent involved in their daily lives and decisions that have to be made in raising them? Do you want to see them as much as possible now and in the future or are you okay with only seeing them a few times a month and allowing your ex to decide what schools they attend, etc?

              Do you want to pay tons of support to your ex for her to freely spend on herself and not necessarily on the kids or would you rather pay less and use that extra money to put towards your kids in how you see fit?

              It is important to write an agreement and get a court order that defines everything as much as possible so that you don't have to continuously go back to court, ever again. Get the big stuff defined now in writing and the little stuff can be reviewed and changed annually, possibly without court if you and your ex can agree on it.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Canadaguy View Post
                At the end of the day you have to decide what you want for your kids.

                Do you want to be an active parent involved in their daily lives and decisions that have to be made in raising them? Do you want to see them as much as possible now and in the future or are you okay with only seeing them a few times a month and allowing your ex to decide what schools they attend, etc?

                Do you want to pay tons of support to your ex for her to freely spend on herself and not necessarily on the kids or would you rather pay less and use that extra money to put towards your kids in how you see fit?

                It is important to write an agreement and get a court order that defines everything as much as possible so that you don't have to continuously go back to court, ever again. Get the big stuff defined now in writing and the little stuff can be reviewed and changed annually, possibly without court if you and your ex can agree on it.
                I agree with your position. Much of my request has been created based on advice from several lawyers I consulted with. As I stated previously, the judge presiding over the case apparently doesn't do shared custody, and the children's ages have also been used as a basis for not pushing for a 50/50 arrangement.

                So from the feedback I'm getting on here are these lawyers blowing smoke, or simply looking for the easy way out?

                And what of the judge? Should the judges stance be taken into consideration, or should I simply challenge the normal paradigm and have low expectations of the outcome I'm looking for?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ninehundredt View Post
                  I agree with your position. Much of my request has been created based on advice from several lawyers I consulted with. As I stated previously, the judge presiding over the case apparently doesn't do shared custody, and the children's ages have also been used as a basis for not pushing for a 50/50 arrangement.

                  So from the feedback I'm getting on here are these lawyers blowing smoke, or simply looking for the easy way out?

                  And what of the judge? Should the judges stance be taken into consideration, or should I simply challenge the normal paradigm and have low expectations of the outcome I'm looking for?
                  If you do a search there is an articles about the 10 year doctrine and how it is not relevant today. There is also stuff written on why 2 year old need to be with both parents, not just one.

                  If your lawyers are against shared custody, IMO you should get one who is for it because they will work for you and have the experience in what it takes to convince a judge it is the best for the kids.

                  Plus your case will take a year to resolve, judges might change by then. Status quo is key at this point for you.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by ninehundredt View Post
                    I agree with your position. Much of my request has been created based on advice from several lawyers I consulted with. As I stated previously, the judge presiding over the case apparently doesn't do shared custody, and the children's ages have also been used as a basis for not pushing for a 50/50 arrangement.

                    So from the feedback I'm getting on here are these lawyers blowing smoke, or simply looking for the easy way out?

                    And what of the judge? Should the judges stance be taken into consideration, or should I simply challenge the normal paradigm and have low expectations of the outcome I'm looking for?
                    You need to get your terminology correct.

                    Custody doesn't have anything to do with hours, it is decision making ability. Unless she can prove you are an unfit parent, she will have an uphill battle getting sole custody.

                    Access is what you are looking at. Again if you are a fit parent, you should be able to propose a schedule for parenting that gives you reasonable access. If you get more than 40% access, then your child support will go down. So don't go for 50/50. ask for 40/60 and have a clause to review based on the age of the children.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by DowntroddenDad View Post
                      You need to get your terminology correct.

                      Custody doesn't have anything to do with hours, it is decision making ability. Unless she can prove you are an unfit parent, she will have an uphill battle getting sole custody.

                      Access is what you are looking at. Again if you are a fit parent, you should be able to propose a schedule for parenting that gives you reasonable access. If you get more than 40% access, then your child support will go down. So don't go for 50/50. ask for 40/60 and have a clause to review based on the age of the children.
                      I'm presently asking for 40/60 with a clause in the agreement stipulating more access based on age.

                      So to clarify the difference between joint and shared custody is strictly related to child support breakdowns, since the parent's already have equal decision making rights with joint?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ninehundredt View Post
                        I'm presently asking for 40/60 with a clause in the agreement stipulating more access based on age.

                        So to clarify the difference between joint and shared custody is strictly related to child support breakdowns, since the parent's already have equal decision making rights with joint?
                        By doing that you are asking for shared physical custody (based on the amount of time each parent spends with the child(ren) which 40-60 is considered the same as 50-50) with joint custody for decision making of the child(ren).

                        The first type of custody is where the battle always is because it is over money. The second is usually joint where both parents have to agree on religion and other major decisions for the child(ren). Minor decisions are usually made by the parent who has more control, spends more time with the child(ren) or gets labeled the primary parent. This is what you want to avoid happening if you want the opportunity to have equal parenting rights with your child(ren).

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by DowntroddenDad View Post
                          So don't go for 50/50. ask for 40/60 and have a clause to review based on the age of the children.
                          I don't agree with this for the simple reasoning of optics.

                          40% is the minimum threshold for offset c/s and shared parenting. Aiming right at that number could be seen as an attempt to avoid full c/s, not as a valid attempt at parenting the child(ren). Plus, even at 40% of the parenting time, a court can use its discretion to cause the parent with 40% to still pay full c/s.

                          Request 50/50, but be willing to settle for 60/40. You don't go in with your bare minimum, you go in higher and settle for lower.

                          Plus, if you are going for shared parenting strictly as a means to avoid paying full c/s, you are doing it wrong....

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by ninehundredt View Post
                            And what of the judge? Should the judges stance be taken into consideration, or should I simply challenge the normal paradigm and have low expectations of the outcome I'm looking for?
                            More than 95% of case are settled without a trial, so the judges decision only factors into the top 5% of the craziest/richest who can afford to pursue the matter to that level.

                            Almost all cases are settled after one or more conferences with strongly worded advice from judges perhaps with the assistance of mediators. Lawyers generally do nothing to resolve conflict, that's not their jobs. As far as I can tell, most of what they do is complicate matters and rile up the other side with inflammatory letters. Sometimes they file some paperwork. Remember your lawyer works for you and will conduct your case how you tell them to. If you don't give them good/enough direction, they will stray and do whatever they think is necessary to make some billable hours on the file.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
                              I don't agree with this for the simple reasoning of optics.

                              40% is the minimum threshold for offset c/s and shared parenting. Aiming right at that number could be seen as an attempt to avoid full c/s, not as a valid attempt at parenting the child(ren). Plus, even at 40% of the parenting time, a court can use its discretion to cause the parent with 40% to still pay full c/s.

                              Request 50/50, but be willing to settle for 60/40. You don't go in with your bare minimum, you go in higher and settle for lower.

                              Plus, if you are going for shared parenting strictly as a means to avoid paying full c/s, you are doing it wrong....
                              This is along the lines of what I've heard. Following this logic I should modify my request for visitation time only so I have a bit more to bargain with. I'm content with continuing to pay the full guideline child support for both children, regardless of whether our agreement is 60/40 or 50/50.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by FightingForFamily View Post
                                More than 95% of case are settled without a trial, so the judges decision only factors into the top 5% of the craziest/richest who can afford to pursue the matter to that level.

                                Almost all cases are settled after one or more conferences with strongly worded advice from judges perhaps with the assistance of mediators. Lawyers generally do nothing to resolve conflict, that's not their jobs. As far as I can tell, most of what they do is complicate matters and rile up the other side with inflammatory letters. Sometimes they file some paperwork. Remember your lawyer works for you and will conduct your case how you tell them to. If you don't give them good/enough direction, they will stray and do whatever they think is necessary to make some billable hours on the file.
                                I will not have a lawyer attending any case conferences. I have made several requests to the other party to do mediation, but they have declined each one.

                                What can I expect at the initial case conference? Can someone give me a run down of how long they last and what happens? I've read countless threads, but none really detail what actually happens during the conference.

                                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