Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Driving for access

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

  • Driving for access

    I'm looking for some advice for a situation that has come up. I recently posted about an ex wanting to move over 200km away.

    Well the short story is that

    Ex sent an email stating intent to move over 200km away. A response was sent stating that NCP did not consent to move as it would prevent a relationship with children and current separation agreement access would no longer be able to be followed (one night a week and eow).

    Verbal conversations occurred with both CP and kids, NCP was convinced that kids wanted to make this move and would be happy with it and CP said they would share the driving and give extra time in the near future to make up for loss of weeknight access.

    Nothing was ever officially changed as far as original separation agreement goes.

    The current problem is this.

    The CP is getting tired of sharing the driving. CP claims that sharing the driving did not mean 50/50 driving each weekend.

    NCP has restated the following. They will pick child up on beginning of access and CP will pick up at end of access, OR NCP will meet halfway at beginning of access and halfway at end if access.

    The amount of driving if NCP does the majority is over 600kms and is a financial burden that NCP did not agree to when consenting to move.

    Is NCP sol or what?

    What happens if CP denies visitation because NCP does not agree to this new 75/25 split of the driving?

    (I should also add that CP and NCP have shares the driving 50/50 for the last 5 weeks since CP moved)

  • #2
    Non-custodial parent should have fought the move. Custodial parent can move wherevev they want, but one parent can't just up and move with kids tagging along, without a good reason.

    It is usually the burden of the one who moves, to take up extra driving, as it was their choice to move further away. If you agree to shared driving, that is good. If the parent who moved away, wants to do the least driving, and leave most of the driving up to the non-custodial parent, who had no choice in this matter, that would not be fair.

    Perhaps others with more knowledge of this, will chime in.
    Last edited by dad2bandm; 11-29-2013, 09:36 AM. Reason: typo

    Comment


    • #3
      How long has this been in effect?

      Comment


      • #4
        The move occurred a month ago

        Comment


        • #5
          It seems reasonable to me that driving be shared 50/50, unless you have agreed otherwise or there are compelling reasons why one parent can't do it (reasons other than "I don't like doing that much driving"). As dad2 said, if the CP was the one who initiated the move, it should fall on him/her to go the extra mile (no pun intended) to adhere to the access schedule, even if this is a hassle. The CP agreed to an access schedule in the separation agreement so s/he is bound to follow it. Denying access is not a legitimate option.

          This seems like the kind of situation where mediation could be useful. It sounds like the NCP has proposed a couple of different options, which suggests s/he is flexible and wants to be fair. It also sounds like s/he changed his/her mind about the move after talking to CP and the kids, which also suggests someone who is flexible. If the CP wants to be reasonable, s/he could choose one of the CP's options for sharing driving.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by stripes View Post
            ...it should fall on him/her to go the extra mile (no pun intended)...
            chuckle.
            But still amusing nonetheless.

            Originally posted by stripes View Post
            ...This seems like the kind of situation where mediation could be useful. It sounds like the NCP has proposed a couple of different options, which suggests s/he is flexible and wants to be fair...
            I agree with stripes on this, but would question why it would even need to go to mediation, over such a minor issue. Parents, even if seperated, should be able to come to some simple compromise over this. But yes, mediation would be a good alternative.

            It sounds like the driving for child exchanges only occur at beginning/endings of weekends now, with this new schedule, between cities?

            I would push for shared driving, as it was the other parent who chose to move away, causing this predicament, and it's only falling on weekends.

            - alternate the pickup/dropoff drives?
            - choose to alternate weekends, so that each parent gets a weeekend, where they don't drive at all?
            - offer to meet halfway?

            If the other parent can't do one of these, that seems unreasonable.

            FYI, if the situation ever presents itself or is in your cards, setup a plan to relocate closer to your kids, if possible, to have more time with them. Move closer, ask for 50/50, because you now reside in the same city as the children, and that would be a change of circumstances.

            Comment


            • #7
              After our lease is up we do plan to move closer, unfortunately that is still 9-10 months away, so we have to hash out this driving thing for the next while.

              Comment


              • #8
                Good for you. That should generally be better for all involved.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I would simply state that it was her unilateral decision to move. NCP consented to the move on the basis that they would share the driving 50/50. That you would not have consented to their move unless the driving was shared.

                  That, in general, it is the parent who moves that is responsible for any increase in travel. That you were being more than reasonable by agreeing to share the driving 50/50 notwithstanding it was their decision to move such a distance. That you intend on continuing with sharing the driving 50/50 in accordance with your agreement to their move. That you will be at the agreed place and the agreed time to exercise your parenting time. Should the children not be there, you will deem it a denial of your parenting time and will seek the appropriate remedy.

                  Edit - And you may want to throw in there that it is your intention to move closer to the children as soon as reasonably possible once your lease is up, so that the current travel arrangement is temporary.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Wyntermcd View Post

                    The CP is getting tired of sharing the driving. CP claims that sharing the driving did not mean 50/50 driving each weekend.

                    NCP has restated the following. They will pick child up on beginning of access and CP will pick up at end of access, OR NCP will meet halfway at beginning of access and halfway at end if access.

                    The amount of driving if NCP does the majority is over 600kms and is a financial burden that NCP did not agree to when consenting to move.

                    Is NCP sol or what?
                    These options are not unreasonable. I think the first one (instead of meeting half way) is probably the better option.

                    Originally posted by Wyntermcd View Post
                    After our lease is up we do plan to move closer, unfortunately that is still 9-10 months away, so we have to hash out this driving thing for the next while.
                    Excellent, so it a short term problem at worst? Going to court over it is probably a waste of time that being the case.

                    Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
                    I would simply state that it was her unilateral decision to move. NCP consented to the move on the basis that they would share the driving 50/50. That you would not have consented to their move unless the driving was shared.

                    That, in general, it is the parent who moves that is responsible for any increase in travel. That you were being more than reasonable by agreeing to share the driving 50/50 notwithstanding it was their decision to move such a distance. That you intend on continuing with sharing the driving 50/50 in accordance with your agreement to their move. That you will be at the agreed place and the agreed time to exercise your parenting time. Should the children not be there, you will deem it a denial of your parenting time and will seek the appropriate remedy.

                    Edit - And you may want to throw in there that it is your intention to move closer to the children as soon as reasonably possible once your lease is up, so that the current travel arrangement is temporary.
                    Some good concepts above.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Update - made the drive up to pick kids up for the weekend. When cp asked for confirmation of p/u location for Sunday, insisted that it remain as agreed and has been in place since move.

                      The good news- I was worried cp would refuse access due to this, she agreed (aka didn't really have a choice) that she comedown to pick kids up as we have done since she moved.

                      The bad news - cp shouted and swore and made a big fuss. We ended up waiting 45 mins outside her house before she allowed kids to come out. They were upset and we were upset and no one was happy with the situation.

                      Cp also threatened that because of this 50/50 driving. NCP will either have to pay more in support, or see kids less for next month. (As if once every two weeks were less enough? )

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Wyntermcd View Post
                        Cp also threatened that because of this 50/50 driving. NCP will either have to pay more in support, or see kids less for next month. (As if once every two weeks were less enough? )
                        C/S is based off of income. Their decision to move has zero impact on c/s paid. Further, CP should have factored in the costs associated with facilitating the NCP's parenting time. NCP's parenting time is specified in the order. The CP isn't allowed to unilaterally alter the parenting time schedule within the order simply because it is no longer convenient.

                        Simply put, CP made their bed by moving the kids so far away. Now they have to lay in it.

                        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