Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

YYC_SingleDad · #21 10-16-2019, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iona6656

You may want to consider getting some counselling or therapy for your anger at your ex for the abandonment issues with the kids. This is how you feel towards her- and has nothing to do with your kids.

That is good advice, I do feel that I should talk to a professional about my feelings when she left the kids.

calvinfive · #22 10-16-2019, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockscan

You aren�t paying cs to your ex. You are paying to equalize the households. CS is for your kids. They should have equal living situations at both homes.

They should. But we all know that is never the case when child support is being paid. It is faaaar from equal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockscan

So what if your ex moved out into a small apartment with little room? Her financial situation obviously dictated that. She worked herself out and moved closer to the kids into bigger accommodations so she could spend time with them. Maybe it was about money maybe not. She wants more time with her kids. She should be given that chance to do so and you should be doing everything you can to ensure the kids have as much access to BOTH parents REGARDLESS of the costs to you.

Few points.

1. This is clearly decisions mother is making due to the costs to her.
2. The law does not state kids must have as much access to BOTH parents. I have been wanting to respond to your thinking on that by case law. Specifically that the maximum contact principle doesn't mean exactly 50/50. In fact, it doesn't even mean 60/40.

Quote:

There is no absolute rule that there must be maximum contact between a child and each of its parents. If there was such a rule, all children would see their time equally divided between their parents.

rockscan · #23 10-16-2019, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvinfive

They should. But we all know that is never the case when child support is being paid. It is faaaar from equal.

Few points.

1. This is clearly decisions mother is making due to the costs to her.

2. The law does not state kids must have as much access to BOTH parents. I have been wanting to respond to your thinking on that by case law. Specifically that the maximum contact principle doesn't mean exactly 50/50. In fact, it doesn't even mean 60/40.

Hey guys...I think tunnelight is back!!!

calvinfive · #24 10-16-2019, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockscan

Hey guys...I think tunnelight is back!!!

https://youtu.be/ZbytR2avo-0?t=22

calvinfive · #25 10-16-2019, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YYC_SingleDad

Thanks for your feedback and the points you mentioned. When she first moved out she retained a lawyer only for property issues and only hired a lawyer in March of this year to discuss parenting. The ex wanted to moved to shared parenting right away and I did not agree as I wanted a transition into shared parenting and overnight access. We agreed in June that she would have Sunday overnights and would see the children on Wednesday and Fridays for dinner. The case then moved to EICC in September and the justice put in a interim parenting order which is every other weekend and a Thursday on her off weekend. The judge is the one that recommended that a hearing take place in the Spring 2020.

That is a good suggestion on 50/50 with child support to remain the same (her paying about $150 a month for two children).

It sounds like you know what you are doing and the courts really didn't want to just give her 50/50 back after she moved back in after she reduced her parenting time like that.

Status quo is in your favour, courts generally don't like to disrupt status quos and I think this is going to be an uphill battle for her and the onus is on her - she has to prove that the change she is seeking is warranted and that it will be in and will serve the child's best interests.

You shouldn't argue the child support issue like that. I was just suggesting that if the mother's real desires were to have more time, she would just ask for more time, and wouldn't make a big issue of $150 a month. Her lawyer has motivated her and given her flapping wings she wouldn't have to pay anymore, and you would have to pay if she wins 50/50 and offset. My part here is to inform you that it won't be an easy battle for her to win 50/50 back after she walked away, and that offset is not automatic. She could still be ordered to pay you $150/month if she ever gets 50/50. Don't say a word about this to her lawyer.. just something to keep in the back of your mind when interacting with her lawyer. The focus of any negotions and discussions should be access. Should it be increased? I sit warranted? If so, to what amount and why? In what increments? Once those details have been worked out, then you guys could discuss child support. Actually, backtrack here, while having these negotiations, you should be ensuring that she is presently paying the correct guideline child support amount. But if it was me, I would keep my mouth zip and not say anything about child support at this time and only focus on access/parenting times.

I would say odds are in your favour unless you or the courts have explicitly stated or implied that you/courts WILL give her 50/50 if she meets certain conditions or demonstrates a requirement by the review hearing

iona6656 · #26 10-16-2019, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvinfive

1. This is clearly decisions mother is making due to the costs to her.

You don't know that. You don't know her motivations. What you know is the OPs side of the story.

Quote:

2. The law does not state kids must have as much access to BOTH parents. I have been wanting to respond to your thinking on that by case law. Specifically that the maximum contact principle doesn't mean exactly 50/50. In fact, it doesn't even mean 60/40.

Funny how you pick and choose this principle based on whether it's a dad wanting 50/50 or a mom wanting 50/50.

calvinfive · #27 10-16-2019, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iona6656

Funny how you pick and choose this principle based on whether it's a dad wanting 50/50 or a mom wanting 50/50.

My stance is firm. Maximum contact principle doesn't automatically mean 50/50. Whether you like it, or not.

YYC_SingleDad · #28 10-17-2019, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvinfive

Status quo is in your favour, courts generally don't like to disrupt status quos and I think this is going to be an uphill battle for her and the onus is on her - she has to prove that the change she is seeking is warranted and that it will be in and will serve the child's best interests.

Would there be any onus on me to prove that the status quo is working very well and that the children are doing well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvinfive

I would say odds are in your favour unless you or the courts have explicitly stated or implied that you/courts WILL give her 50/50 if she meets certain conditions or demonstrates a requirement by the review hearing

It only states that a review hearing will be scheduled in Spring 2020, with a move towards shared parenting and we are allowed two witnesses each. There are no certain conditions that in the interim order that need to be met.

Berner_Faith · #29 10-17-2019, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YYC_SingleDad

Would there be any onus on me to prove that the status quo is working very well and that the children are doing well?

It only states that a review hearing will be scheduled in Spring 2020, with a move towards shared parenting and we are allowed two witnesses each. There are no certain conditions that in the interim order that need to be met.

So you�re order states you�re to move towards shared parenting? Your only issue you have with shared parenting is you�d have to pay her CS. You�d be okay with 60-40 but not 50-50. You haven�t provided and reasons why she should t get shared parenting. Yes you may have status quo but with the wording of your order �moving towards shared parenting� it sounds like status quo isn�t going to hold much weight

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

YYC_SingleDad · #30 10-17-2019, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berner_Faith

So you�re order states you�re to move towards shared parenting? Your only issue you have with shared parenting is you�d have to pay her CS. You�d be okay with 60-40 but not 50-50. You haven�t provided and reasons why she should t get shared parenting. Yes you may have status quo but with the wording of your order �moving towards shared parenting� it sounds like status quo isn�t going to hold much weight

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the reply and your thoughts. I do have reasons why shared parenting may not work in our case but I will not get into as I see how heated discussion can get on this forum.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Best Interests of Children: An Evidence- Based Approach	WorkingDAD	Divorce & Family Law	13	01-12-2013 09:15 PM
Joint Physical Custody: Smart Solution or Problematic Plan?	WorkingDAD	Parenting Issues	19	09-17-2012 06:38 AM
Examining resistance to joint custody	first timer	Parenting Issues	29	03-21-2011 08:37 AM
Joint custody - questions & answers (US)	first timer	Parenting Issues	0	03-20-2011 12:07 AM
How to proceed	CatvsLion	Divorce & Family Law	9	04-25-2006 10:10 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