Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lost for words

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

  • Lost for words

    Say, you asked the other party why do they think 50/50 or at least an increase of the existent eow + mid week access is not good fro the child in their view.

    What would you say if the other party would tell something like this (copy of the original text including punctuation as it is):

    "Also on the subject of access when Xxxxxx grows up around age 10-12 she is going to be a big girl and can make decisions on her own yes defintely if she wants to live with you more than what the arrangement is right now I wont mind it. but it has to be her decision right now it is what is best for her since she cant tell me whats going on and how she feels about it she is too little for that arragnment that you are requesting. but in the future i can say 50% but defintely IF SHE wants to go more often it is her choice."

    I hope you can agree with me that it is going to be her choice and you cant do anything about it weather she would want to spend more time with me or you.

    I am honestly lost for words (for polite ones at least). How to respond?

  • #2
    I don't think there's much to reply to here. It seems to be a lot of jumbled words basically saying "no, I do not want to increase access to 50/50 because I just don't want to". You asked, he answered. Doesn't sounds like there's much room for more negotiation.

    Is it worth continuing this discussion, or should you be moving to the next step, whatever that may be (mediation, court, etc)? Bear in mind that if you're seeking to change the status quo, the onus is on you to show why the change you're proposing is better than the status quo. The other party doesn't need to come up with arguments in favour of retaining the status quo.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by stripes View Post
      I don't think there's much to reply to here. It seems to be a lot of jumbled words basically saying "no, I do not want to increase access to 50/50 because I just don't want to". You asked, he answered. Doesn't sounds like there's much room for more negotiation.

      Is it worth continuing this discussion, or should you be moving to the next step, whatever that may be (mediation, court, etc)? Bear in mind that if you're seeking to change the status quo, the onus is on you to show why the change you're proposing is better than the status quo. The other party doesn't need to come up with arguments in favour of retaining the status quo.
      Basically, you are saying whoever grabbed the child first and run away with him/her has the best interest of this child in mind? Did I understand you correctly? There is a case, mentioned here many, many times, this one: CanLII - 2011 ONSC 6451 (CanLII)
      where the judge judge out this as #1 question in his introduction: 1. Should an almost two-year "status quo" created by manipulation and deceit prevail in a custody trial? The answer was "No".

      So I am not sure why a loving and capable parent should prove in court that s/he has every right to be 50/50 in the child's life. Am I wrong?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by iceberg View Post
        right now it is what is best for her

        Right now the parent seeking shared custody should prove that is in the BIC. And unless you are a dead beat mama you should fight for shared because kids are happiest when both loving parents are about equally involved in their life
        No, not a dead beat parent and doing just that: fighting. Just was wondering how to respond to the BS mentioned in my post above.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mother View Post
          No, not a dead beat parent and doing just that: fighting. Just was wondering how to respond to the BS mentioned in my post above.
          no sense in responding, your ex made it clear. Your next option is the legal route.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mother View Post
            Basically, you are saying whoever grabbed the child first and run away with him/her has the best interest of this child in mind? Did I understand you correctly? There is a case, mentioned here many, many times, this one: CanLII - 2011 ONSC 6451 (CanLII)
            where the judge judge out this as #1 question in his introduction: 1. Should an almost two-year "status quo" created by manipulation and deceit prevail in a custody trial? The answer was "No".

            So I am not sure why a loving and capable parent should prove in court that s/he has every right to be 50/50 in the child's life. Am I wrong?
            I didn't read that at all... What I got from Stripes post was to not discuss this with the other parent, instead go the legal route, however you do have to understand, if there is a status quo you do have to prove why it needs to be changed. Even with the case you posted, the party involved still had to go the legal route and fight for what they believed in.

            How long has this status quo been going on? Even if it is false.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
              no sense in responding, your ex made it clear. Your next option is the legal route.
              You think so? That's what I am thinking too. At least this is what my common sense tells me, however my emotions are a totally different story

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mother View Post
                You think so? That's what I am thinking too. At least this is what my common sense tells me, however my emotions are a totally different story
                I know, but what is the key thing that is repeated time and time again on this site? To keep emotions out of it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                  I didn't read that at all... What I got from Stripes post was to not discuss this with the other parent, instead go the legal route, however you do have to understand, if there is a status quo you do have to prove why it needs to be changed. Even with the case you posted, the party involved still had to go the legal route and fight for what they believed in.

                  How long has this status quo been going on? Even if it is false.
                  I can understand why you missed it: because there is a ton of info posted here daily, it's impossible to read absolutely everything unless you dedicate all you time reading this very useful discussion forum but who can afford it (wish I found it in the beginning of our crap), but it's better later than never.

                  Actually one on the parties in this case is an active participant on this forum and he has tons and tons of info to share. It was also discussed here many times so I am not disclosing anything that was not previously discussed here.

                  As to going a legal rout, this is what we are actually doing. Our settlement conference is coming in a month or so.

                  The existing status quo lasts since summer of 2012 (but feels forever).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
                    I know, but what is the key thing that is repeated time and time again on this site? To keep emotions out of it.
                    100% agree and 100000% hard to do. But what the heck, did someone promised life will be easy!?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mother View Post
                      Basically, you are saying whoever grabbed the child first and run away with him/her has the best interest of this child in mind? Did I understand you correctly?

                      So I am not sure why a loving and capable parent should prove in court that s/he has every right to be 50/50 in the child's life. Am I wrong?
                      No, you didn't understand me correctly. I'm not saying that the current arrangement with your ex is the best thing for the child. I have no idea about that. I'm saying that because you are seeking to change an existing arrangement that's been in effect for over a year, you will need to prove that the change you want is better than continuing the status quo.

                      One thing you should not attempt to prove is that you have a "right to be 50/50 in your child's life". You don't have any such right. The child is the only person who has rights. You need to argue that the arrangement you prefer is best FOR THE CHILD, and leave ideas about your rights out of it

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by stripes View Post
                        No, you didn't understand me correctly. I'm not saying that the current arrangement with your ex is the best thing for the child. I have no idea about that. I'm saying that because you are seeking to change an existing arrangement that's been in effect for over a year, you will need to prove that the change you want is better than continuing the status quo.

                        One thing you should not attempt to prove is that you have a "right to be 50/50 in your child's life". You don't have any such right. The child is the only person who has rights. You need to argue that the arrangement you prefer is best FOR THE CHILD, and leave ideas about your rights out of it
                        Got it! Thanks, stripes.

                        What would be the best proof of it? Child loves the other parent as well? Child has a right to be with the other parent too? How to prove it? How can someone prove that a child loves this parent?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well, just thinking off the top of my head and not knowing if any of this applies to your case ... You could argue that circumstances have changed, perhaps the EOW parent had an unstable job or financial or living situation in the past but has now settled down to the point that s/he could offer a good environment for 50/50. Or you could argue that the child's needs have changed as s/he gets older - perhaps a primary custody situation made sense with a very young child who was used to one parent as the primary caregiver, but now the child is old enough and independent enough that s/he doesn't need the same amount of hands-on care, and is therefore able to live equally with both parents. Or that while initially the child was primarily bonded to the other custodial parent, over the year of EOW access the child's attachment to the non-custodial parent has grown, and 50/50 would give this bond a chance to flourish. Or if the child is approaching adolescence, it's becoming important for him/her to have more time with a same-sex parent.

                          My impression is that the courts are pretty favourable to 50/50 arrangements unless there are strong reasons why this is a bad idea. I don't know what would be relevant to your particular situation.

                          What I suggest you avoid doing, however, is
                          1. Bad-mouthing the other parent. This is not about him being a bad parent, it's about a situation where you are both good parents. You don't want to give the impression that you're biased against the other parent or that you can't work together. You want the court to believe that you and the other parent can work together in a 50/50 arrangement and co-operate even more closely than you do now.
                          2. Mentioning anything about the financial changes which would follow a custody change.
                          3. Talking about yourself and what you want, need, deserve, etc. This is all about the kid.

                          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