Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shared Parenting

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Serene View Post
    Is there a legal definition of shared parenting? My hubby's ex is hung up on the term "shared parenting" and insists that they are not in this arrangement.

    Kids have two homes. Joint legal custody and dad has access more 40 percent of time... she insists on adding to every document primary caregiver and/or primary residence. Dad crosses it out and puts in this caveat: the children have and identify with two homes. The children are in a shared parenting regime and the parents share joint legal custody. Both homes and parents are to be treated equitably.

    Why is she so hard pressed on this text? She never was before and within last month she has started to get whacky again.
    Shared Parenting is a often miss-used term. The Divorce Act and the CLRA (Ontario) do not define the term and when determining access and custody the term has little legal meaning.

    You are left with:

    Custody - which can be joint or shared. With joint you could have it setup in the model of parallel parenting.

    - Joint custody
    - Sole custody
    - Joint custody in the model of parallel parenting (w/ specific details on how this all works.)

    When it comes to access it is usually defined as:

    - Shared equal access
    - Majority access
    - Access as defined by a schedule

    The term "shared" only really comes in to play with regards to Tax Law and the FCSG (Federal Child Support Guidelines).

    Some more modern judges use the term "residential schedule" and drop all other notions of "access" and "majority" to be politically correct. The term "access parent" can create unnecessary conflict and it is slowly being phased out of most Section 30 reports I have seen in the last year. OCL hasn't gotten there yet, but it is just a matter of time that orders talk about "shared equal residency".

    An example can be found here:

    CanLII - 2013 ONSC 5102 (CanLII)

    You will see the wording from the Section 30 assessor and how the new evolving terminology for "residency" works.

    Para 177, subsection II, para 4 and onwards. The justice also footnoted the terminology for "resident parent" as:

    The term "resident parent" means the parent in whose care a child is at any given time.
    You will see more of this kind of layout of "resident parent" (who the child are currently with at that time) versus "access". The pattern is to setup the terminology so the children reside with both parents. The concept of "visiting" a parent is a term lost in 1978 and not appropriate for 2014.

    I don't encourage anyone ever to refer to the other parent is the "visiting" or "access parent" - unless you like to create conflict and pay large legal bills.

    Good Luck!
    Tayken

    Comment


    • #17
      Sounds like she is off her meds again Serene!

      Comment


      • #18
        Tayken - the mom in our equation refers to dad as "access only" all the time. In fact, it is preferred over the other sh@t she calls him.

        You know, she lied in her court material and said my husband refused to take care of sick kids. That is furthest from the truth. And yet when they went to court she insisted that kids go back to her when they are sick.... she sucks and blows all she wants. And in truth, without repercussions.

        She was on meds for many years. I know because it is on my husband's benefit history and is still accessible. There is no harm in treating depression, etc. And in truth, I believe she can't avoid it as there is a long history of mental health issues in the genes (her father and grandfather both committed suicide less than a year apart). And I suspect this is one of her drivers. Because no reasonable parent would sabotage a relationship with a person (dad) who loves his kids to the moon and back. Then again, I don't get the sense her father was much of a father to her growing up... sigh...

        Comment


        • #19
          [QUOTEShe was on meds for many years. I know because it is on my husband's benefit history and is still accessible. There is no harm in treating depression, etc. And in truth, I believe she can't avoid it as there is a long history of mental health issues in the genes (her father and grandfather both committed suicide less than a year apart). And I suspect this is one of her drivers. Because no reasonable parent would sabotage a relationship with a person (dad) who loves his kids to the moon and back. Then again, I don't get the sense her father was much of a father to her growing up... sigh... ][/QUOTE]

          Im no doctor, but it doesn't sound like she s depressed. Sounds like she is "Crazy" and I use that term loosely. She has problems that needs urgent attention really. Its almost like game playing and for what really? At what cost?

          Im not understanding how she lives normally every day really.

          I could be wrong.

          Comment


          • #20
            Sorry, didn't mean to make light of her being on meds, and myself I am a depression survivor as well but I truly believe it doesn't make one an irrational person, an irrational person makes one an irrational person and I know how your husband feels.

            Even the children's lawyer has disclosed that I am a great Dad and the children should spend and want to spend significant more time with me, but their irrational Mom still is fighting even my requests for vacation time. Pretty sad.

            Comment


            • #21
              I didn't take it the wrong way at all. And fyi, I need sometimes for people to lighten the air around me

              I am not dismissing mom's behaviour. What she has put us and their kids through is HELL. I have missed countless days of work and so has my husband because of her. She is willfully destructive at best. Its terrible.

              I lay awake at night and think to myself - what would have to happen that I would sabotage my kid's relationship with their father like she is. How could I rationalize this would be okay? I mean, there are father's out there that aren't actively involved in their children's lives. But to take issue when an upstanding father who loves and adores his children (and not just says it but DEMONSTRATES it over and over and over again) just doesn't make sense.

              I feel terribly that she is likely fighting her own demons. But that doesn't excuse her malicious behaviour and all the times she has interfered and fettered with dad's access. Today we had the children call her and she probed the kids on where we were going and what we were doing all week. Quite frankly, its none of her business. And moreso because she will follow us around if we tell her what we are doing. Oh yes and she is rude and says distasteful things to those that are present with us.... ugggg.... I hate this.

              Comment


              • #22
                To me, in my case, the saddest thing is, is that so far the Children's Lawyer and the Family Court System seems to not take issue with a mother intentionally sabotaging the children's relationship and disallowing any extra time with their father who is an involved, responsible, upstanding and loving father. Even the Children's Lawyer does not deny this. But then they hop back onside with the skirt.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Yes I completely agree. Makes no sense. The mom in our situation suggested dad skype his children and yet we live SIX minutes away. The judge didn't bat an eye. Mom's rationale was "I have already given up too much time with the children and he can Skype them, but he can't take them anywhere.... maybe he could take them to a swimming lesson, but he can't take them home". The judge said NOTHING. I don't get it. Skyping your kid isn't the same as having your child curl up on your lap. Of course, mom's bf left his kids on the coast to come and hook up with mom and he Skypes his kids all the time because he chose to walk out of their life and see them only a few times a year. In four years they have only visited his home once... all this speaks to the culture that mom is accustom to. She really doesn't value the role of a father, not for her, not for her kids, not for her bf's kids.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Hey Serene, sorry to post off topic, but I tried to reply to a message you sent me, and I can't, as your private message store is full. Just FYI.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Yep, I emptied it. Pls try again.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Because she is the Mom and most judges and lawyers in the Family Court System are still living in the olden days!

                        It's ok in their eyes for Dads to be visitors in their children's lives and anyone who hooks up with Mom well it's ok for them to be Dad by default of them hooking up with Mom. This is the ass-backwards unjust system that we all have to change and don't get me wrong there are also plenty of great ex wifes and plenty of useless ex husbands out there too.
                        Last edited by DontGiveUp; 07-03-2014, 10:12 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Serene View Post
                          Yes I completely agree. Makes no sense. The mom in our situation suggested dad skype his children and yet we live SIX minutes away. The judge didn't bat an eye. Mom's rationale was "I have already given up too much time with the children and he can Skype them, but he can't take them anywhere.... maybe he could take them to a swimming lesson, but he can't take them home". The judge said NOTHING. I don't get it. Skyping your kid isn't the same as having your child curl up on your lap. Of course, mom's bf left his kids on the coast to come and hook up with mom and he Skypes his kids all the time because he chose to walk out of their life and see them only a few times a year. In four years they have only visited his home once... all this speaks to the culture that mom is accustom to. She really doesn't value the role of a father, not for her, not for her kids, not for her bf's kids.
                          This leaves me wondering if this attitude is because people that act this way, didn't grow up with a father themselves, hence they feel the need to believe that their offsprings are better off without one?

                          I think the onus is on all of us to do our due diligence before hooking up with someone who has kids, to see what relationship they have with their kids i.e. how involved they are. Failure to do this could lead to being blindsided by evil masqurading as love

                          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