Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Serene View PostI think we need more info and clearer text. The horrible act itself would need to be better defined. And why is step parent only wanting access some two years later? How old are kids?
Thanks
Comment
-
Don't forget the mantra of family law: best interests of the children.
Did the children have a good relationship with their step-parent when they resided there? Do they miss their step-siblings? Would it be good for the children to see the other family now and then? Will the absent parent be returning to access some day? Should these relationships be maintained? Is the absent parent still earning income and paying CS? Is the step-parent responsible for covering the CS in the parent's absence?
Examine those questions and you will be closer to your answers.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rioe View PostDon't forget the mantra of family law: best interests of the children.
Did the children have a good relationship with their step-parent when they resided there? Do they miss their step-siblings? Would it be good for the children to see the other family now and then? Will the absent parent be returning to access some day? Should these relationships be maintained? Is the absent parent still earning income and paying CS? Is the step-parent responsible for covering the CS in the parent's absence?
Examine those questions and you will be closer to your answers.
ok.
1.Did the children have a good relationship with their step-parent when they resided there (yes)
2. Do they miss their step-siblings? ( how this can be proved by either party?)
3.Will the absent parent be returning to access some day? Should these relationships be maintained? ( NO)
4.Is the absent parent still earning income and paying CS? (NO, IN JAIL) Never paid Child Support (kids lived with Parent B)
5.Is the step-parent responsible for covering the CS in the parent's absence? (NO, Parent A, beliefs he/she should and want's to pursue child support from that step-parent)
Thanks
Comment
-
I am hoping I am reading thos wrong but it seems that Parent A wants to get cs from a step parent but doesn't want to allow access to that step parent. Kind of have your cake and eat it too situation. If Parent B is in jail and this has no income, no cs is paid, but if your relative wants cs from the step parent, why wouldn't the step parent be entitled to 50-50 access? Seems like they spent more time with the child than Parent A.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Berner_Faith View PostI am hoping I am reading thos wrong but it seems that Parent A wants to get cs from a step parent but doesn't want to allow access to that step parent. Kind of have your cake and eat it too situation. If Parent B is in jail and this has no income, no cs is paid, but if your relative wants cs from the step parent, why wouldn't the step parent be entitled to 50-50 access? Seems like they spent more time with the child than Parent A.
Not really. They (Children and step-parent)did not see each other for 2 years.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Berner_Faith View PostSo this makes even less sense. The step parent hasn't seen the children in two years but after two years the bio parent wants to file for support?
Bio parent did not want anything to do with it, but was served with motion for access . In response that bio parent decided to proceed with support.
Thanks
Comment
-
Originally posted by Berner_Faith View PostSo this makes even less sense. The step parent hasn't seen the children in two years but after two years the bio parent wants to file for support?
I believe the bio parent was quite content with sole custody, 100% access and getting no CS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by moonlight View PostParent A has sole custody (new partner) and EOW screw job. ( Yes is possible ) .
Parent A is the sole custodial decision maker for the child in question, has a new partner involved in their life but, only has "every other weekend" access to the child in question. I am going to assume that the child/ren in question are under the age of two (2).
Originally posted by moonlight View PostParent B (has new partner too)non-custodial with majority time with kids. Parent B does something really bad and loses all time with kids in addition to no custody.
To address your comment above "yes is possible" and why this happens (and when):
Justices often find it troubling when parents demonstrate obvious patterns of behaviour that are manipulative and self-serving. Justices especially don't like when a parent creates a favourable status quo through falsehood and misrepresentation as a litigation strategy: It is often seen as tantamount to child abuse.
Access is some times removed from people like Parent B because these parents lack a "Parental judgement"; The ability to sacrifice self-interest for the sake of the child; Awareness of the child’s need to have maximum contact with both parents.
Often, parents like "Parent B" will engulf themselves in so many lies that they can't ever overcome them. They never realized the common saying: "Lies have short legs, they won't carry you too far."
Parents, like "Parent B", often demonstrate:
- Exhibitionist behavior
For example: They will scream and yell in a court room.
- Constant seeking of reassurance or approval
For example: Come to message boards to seek approval from strangers regarding their situation and viewpoints.
- Excessive sensitivity to criticism or disapproval
For example: They will tell people who are responding to their threads to read what they wrote even when the person is being helpful and has provided good advice.
- Pride of own personality and unwillingness to change, viewing any change as a threat
For example: They project blame at others. They never take accountability for the "bad thing" that resulted in them losing access to their child. They will never admit to and seek help from medical professionals for mental illness. They constantly live in a delusional world where they are always right and everyone else is wrong.
- Inappropriately seductive appearance or behavior of a sexual nature
For example: They will come to public message forums and ask if it is ok to have sex in front of their dog.
- Using somatic symptoms (of physical illness) to garner attention
For example: They will fake an illness to get out of a difficult situation. The most extreme cases they will exaggerate their medical conditions and try to project that simple medical things are impacting their ability to function.
Some times, it is so extreme it is almost a "fictitious disorder" and in cases where children are involved "fictitious disorder by proxy" scenario.
- A need to be the centre of attention
For example: They will cancel appointments, access time and create situations so the focus can be placed back on them. Their struggles and how they are so hard done by...
- Low tolerance for frustration or delayed gratification
For example: They live in a state of belief whereby they think they are right and that everyone should do what they say and believe what they say. They will cancel access visits because they are not getting exactly what they want.
- Rapidly shifting emotional states that may appear superficial or exaggerated to others
For example: One day they are passing in public because they have some sort of medical condition... The next day they are the "best" parent in the world and don't have a medical condition worthy of sympathy anymore.
- Tendency to believe that relationships are more intimate than they actually are
For example: They will obsess about their partner and if that their new partner can adopt their children because the other parent is in jail.
- Making rash decisions
For example: Attempting to abduct child/ren in contravention of section 283.(1) or 282.(1) to seek vengence for an order they are unwilling to live with from the Superior Court. Making false allegations in a sworn affidavit to seek revenge.
- Blaming personal failures or disappointments on others
For example: They are unable to realize what they did wrong. Why they are in the situation they are in and constantly project blame on the other parent. They are unable to reflect on their own behaviour, seek the proper mental health treatments and improve their own quality of life.
- Being easily influenced by others, especially those who treat them approvingly
For example: These parents often hire the most conflicted lawyers and will do anything they say to do. They seek out lawyers who will not challenge them on any of their "false beliefs". These are the same people who believe that because they swear an affidavit that everyone should believe what they have written...
- Being overly dramatic and emotional
For example: They will swear affidavits up and down the court house stating they are a victim, have always been a victim, scream and cry in the court room and generally people walk on eggshells whenever they are around.
... continued ...Last edited by Tayken; 11-22-2013, 01:19 PM.
Comment
-
Now for your "questions":
Originally posted by moonlightingKids with Parent A now full time with no access to parent B, for period of 2 years. NOW QUESTIONS
1. Does partner of Parent B have any rights/access to the children?
They don't hand out custodial responsibility easily. Especially to partners of a parent. So, it is HIGHLY doubtful that Parent B's partner has any chance to even get in front of a justice to have their Applicaiton heard. They will also have costs ordered against them for doing so.
There are situations where this can happen but, it takes a significant amount of time to demonstrate a significant enough emotional bond to establish in loco parentis.
Originally posted by moonlighting2. Do step-children of Parent B have any rights/access to step siblings?
Originally posted by moonlighting3. Can Parent A be entailed for some children support from partner of parent B?
Good Luck!
Tayken
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Tayken View PostTo clarify this is how I read this statement quoted above:
Parent A is the sole custodial decision maker for the child in question, has a new partner involved in their life but, only has "every other weekend" access to the child in question. I am going to assume that the child/ren in question are under the age of two (2).
Parent B had majority access, also has a new partner involved in their life, is not a custodial parent and it was determined by a justice (on motion / trial) that Parent B should not have access to the child/ren in question.
To address your comment above "yes is possible" and why this happens (and when):
Justices often find it troubling when parents demonstrate obvious patterns of behaviour that are manipulative and self-serving. Justices especially don't like when a parent creates a favourable status quo through falsehood and misrepresentation as a litigation strategy: It is often seen as tantamount to child abuse.
Access is some times removed from people like Parent B because these parents lack a "Parental judgement"; The ability to sacrifice self-interest for the sake of the child; Awareness of the child’s need to have maximum contact with both parents.
Often, parents like "Parent B" will engulf themselves in so many lies that they can't ever overcome them. They never realized the common saying: "Lies have short legs, they won't carry you too far."
Parents, like "Parent B", often demonstrate:
- Exhibitionist behavior
For example: They will scream and yell in a court room.
- Constant seeking of reassurance or approval
For example: Come to message boards to seek approval from strangers regarding their situation and viewpoints.
- Excessive sensitivity to criticism or disapproval
For example: They will tell people who are responding to their threads to read what they wrote even when the person is being helpful and has provided good advice.
- Pride of own personality and unwillingness to change, viewing any change as a threat
For example: They project blame at others. They never take accountability for the "bad thing" that resulted in them losing access to their child. They will never admit to and seek help from medical professionals for mental illness. They constantly live in a delusional world where they are always right and everyone else is wrong.
- Inappropriately seductive appearance or behavior of a sexual nature
For example: They will come to public message forums and ask if it is ok to have sex in front of their dog.
- Using somatic symptoms (of physical illness) to garner attention
For example: They will fake an illness to get out of a difficult situation. The most extreme cases they will exaggerate their medical conditions and try to project that simple medical things are impacting their ability to function.
Some times, it is so extreme it is almost a "fictitious disorder" and in cases where children are involved "fictitious disorder by proxy" scenario.
- A need to be the centre of attention
For example: They will cancel appointments, access time and create situations so the focus can be placed back on them. Their struggles and how they are so hard done by...
- Low tolerance for frustration or delayed gratification
For example: They live in a state of belief whereby they think they are right and that everyone should do what they say and believe what they say. They will cancel access visits because they are not getting exactly what they want.
- Rapidly shifting emotional states that may appear superficial or exaggerated to others
For example: One day they are passing in public because they have some sort of medical condition... The next day they are the "best" parent in the world and don't have a medical condition worthy of sympathy anymore.
- Tendency to believe that relationships are more intimate than they actually are
For example: They will obsess about their partner and if that their new partner can adopt their children because the other parent is in jail.
- Making rash decisions
For example: Attempting to abduct child/ren in contravention of section 283.(1) or 282.(1) to seek vengence for an order they are unwilling to live with from the Superior Court. Making false allegations in a sworn affidavit to seek revenge.
- Blaming personal failures or disappointments on others
For example: They are unable to realize what they did wrong. Why they are in the situation they are in and constantly project blame on the other parent. They are unable to reflect on their own behaviour, seek the proper mental health treatments and improve their own quality of life.
- Being easily influenced by others, especially those who treat them approvingly
For example: These parents often hire the most conflicted lawyers and will do anything they say to do. They seek out lawyers who will not challenge them on any of their "false beliefs". These are the same people who believe that because they swear an affidavit that everyone should believe what they have written...
- Being overly dramatic and emotional
For example: They will swear affidavits up and down the court house stating they are a victim, have always been a victim, scream and cry in the court room and generally people walk on eggshells whenever they are around.
... continued ...
Tyken, you wrong in this situation.
What really happened Parent B traded custody for access with Parent A. For Parent A was very important to have control.
As to loosing access , parent B made something , that did put him/her in jail.
so , please, do not assume you know everything. Assuming is well known fact to make ass of yourself.
take care
Comment
Comment