Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vacations/Appointments Question

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

  • #31
    Of course I have advice: Why lie? You did not edit to fix a spelling error, you edited to add your further comments. I can post your original if necessary, but I think you'll concur with this statement.

    You attacked my character when you directed your derogatory comment specifically towards me. If I see you doing something similar to any other poster, I’ll delete your post(s).

    I ran the “fairly common clause” by a couple of people today that regularly draft separation agreements because now I’m curious about this mobility clause you are insistent on [although you already have an interim motion that confirms status quo remains in your area and can not be moved?], and they advised out-of-country is automatic, provincial not so much. And as several others have also noted in this thread, exiting the province doesn’t seem noteworthy. I certainly don’t think it is a given.

    And, btw, re: favourable government studies on government programs – well… that is sort of what they do, isn’t it?
    Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

    Comment


    • #32
      I am re-opening this thread due to requests by various parties.

      Keep it clean in here and unnecessary comments to yourselves.

      Comment


      • #33
        Good ^ I think it is a very interesting subject. In many CanLii cases I have read judges specifically refer to the false setting of status quo during child custody battles leading up to court.

        https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...&resultIndex=1

        "21. Very much related to this is the court’s increasing concern that parents should not be allowed to gain strategic advantage – and children should not be needlessly disrupted -- by a parent unilaterally creating a new status quo through manipulation or deliberate acts. Izyuk v. Bilousov 2011 ONSC 6451 (CanLII), 2011 ONSC 6451 (SCJ); Nyari v. Velasco 2008 ONCJ 272 (CanLII), 2008 ONCJ 272 (OCJ).

        22. A parent who engages in self-help tactics despite the best interests of the child will generally raise serious questions about their own parenting skills and judgment. In many cases, courts conclude manipulative, selfish or spiteful parents simply can’t be entrusted with custodial authority they would likely abuse. Izyuk v. Bilousov (supra); Clement v. Clement 2010 ONSC 1113 (CanLII), 2010 ONSC 1113 (SCJ)."

        In LF32's situation the interim Order is that a status quo be maintained in XXX city. It is a very specific Order with no room for misunderstanding IMO.

        Comment


        • #34
          Very good case law indeed Arabian.

          I guess the reason I started the thread was because my case differs from other's, who's ex may simply be going for a visit, or to COSTCO ..or for the weekend at a resort.

          In contrast, my ex is forming a new status quo...against the judges wishes.

          This becomes very difficult for me to prove obviously.

          So Blink's link in this thread's first page on "standard clauses" kind of woke me up a little.

          Nothing controlling nor aggressive .. she doesn't need my permission. Just notification so I can at least know how frequent her "visit's" are. But again, I'm sure she wouldn't report when she goes anyways .. why would she? She knows she's going against an order.

          Another reason I wanted to politely request it was so that at least I could show that I was aware of it but not accepting of it (acquiescence). How can I show that if I say nothing. Isn't saying nothing implied consent?

          Yes, my situation is very tough. I say nothing = implied consent/acquiescence .. if I even mention a common out-of-province clause it transforms in to aggressive/controlling by some. I certainly dont want to come across as the latter .. not my intention at all.

          Comment


          • #35
            This clause:

            5.8 [ ] If either the Applicant or Respondent plans a vacation with the
            [ ] child [ ] children, that party shall give the other party a detailed itinerary at least ____ days before the vacation begins, or as soon as is practical if plans are made less than _____ days before the vacation begins, including the name of any airline carrier and flight times, accommodation, including address and telephone numbers, and details about how to contact the [ ] child [ ] children during the trip.






            Is generally considered in connection with international travel for vacations. In your situation, where you live on a border town with another province, and the ex has family in that province where they going to visit, I doubt it would be considered necessary or reasonable for the ex to provide you with such info each time.

            The travel/distance you mention is equal to me going to visit my parents a few hours away, albeit in the same province.

            I believe I read that you already have an order/agreement which stipulates that the child cannot be moved outside a certain distance. If/when the ex says she is moving (or has moved) you invoke that clause and go from there. What you are doing now is worrying more about "what if's" and whatever nefarious plans you think that your ex may be up to. That is not sound logic. React to issues as they actually arise. Don't waste energy thinking about what the ex MAY do.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
              This clause:
              Is generally considered in connection with international travel for vacations. In your situation, where you live on a border town with another province, and the ex has family in that province where they going to visit, I doubt it would be considered necessary or reasonable for the ex to provide you with such info each time.

              The travel/distance you mention is equal to me going to visit my parents a few hours away, albeit in the same province.

              I believe I read that you already have an order/agreement which stipulates that the child cannot be moved outside a certain distance. If/when the ex says she is moving (or has moved) you invoke that clause and go from there. What you are doing now is worrying more about "what if's" and whatever nefarious plans you think that your ex may be up to. That is not sound logic. React to issues as they actually arise. Don't waste energy thinking about what the ex MAY do.
              Sound advice. Thanks HD. Perhaps I am wasting my energy on this issue. Still new to all this and don't want any acquiescence or implied consent. Ex tells me often she goes to QC. D4 says she doesnt sleep at home.

              This thread was to address what I should be doing about that.

              React to issues as they actually arise. Don't waste energy thinking about what the ex MAY do.
              Haven't reacted yet. I just wanted some good discussion on it .. the reason I love these forums. So many great perspectives.

              Comment


              • #37
                My D rarely slept at my old apartment when she was little (like 2'ish). It was a one bedroom, so when she was over, she got my bed and I slept on the couch. It was just easier to stay at my parents house, which was 2+ hours away, as they had the room and it allowed everyone to see each other (plus, I got some help with my kid).

                Until the ex notifies you that she plans on moving, or has moved, there is really little that can be done. You have the clause in your order/agreement to fall back on should you need to. Right now you are trying to practice preventative medicine, and your ex would have little trouble spinning it that you are acting in a controlling manner as she is only going to visit her parents.

                IMO, I'd drop it. Should the ex move, you deal with it then. But the fact that she spends most her time with her family isn't going to be seen as unreasonable or uncommon.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
                  You have the clause in your order/agreement to fall back on should you need to.
                  I hear what you're saying. And I agree with a lot of it.

                  My ex can't practice paralegal in Ontario. Only QC. Not the correct provincial credentials. All her friends/family/support is in QC. She told OCL she was planning to become a paralegal again and that QC has fruitful opportunities.

                  The mobility clause in place now is only an interim thing. Trial is approaching .. all new stuff. I'm assuming ex will come in with all of the above (family, support, job .. indirectly informing the courts how comfy D4 has become in the neighborhoods there (status quo).

                  I believe in your situation HD it was in the same province. Also my ex can only work in QC with her education. It's very obvious the court fight I will eventually have. I'm just trying to prepare a bit for it.

                  She may also say .. LF32 even knew about all our time here. He was okay with it.

                  I'm sure she can spin it in to aggression/controlling (spin being the key word). I'm totally cognizant of that, which is why I've refrained from bringing it up at all.

                  I'm getting good info on the matter here. Despite all my thoughts here, I would tend to agree with you HD that I probably should only fight battles as they arise.

                  Thank you

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Your ex could surely get a job in a law firm in your area. The fact that she is bi-lingual and has experience with Quebec law would be an asset.

                    Depending on the nature of law your ex is in, she could easily get a job at one of the larger law firms in Ottawa. It may not be a clerk/paralegal position initially, but it may work up to that. If she really wants to work in Ontario, all she needs is the ILCO courses ( Exam - Course Schedules ) and she could get a job quite easily.

                    All that aside, I hear a lot of "she could" "she may" "she can". What the ex may do and what she has done are different things. Yeah, she can say she you knew that she was always there and didn't say anything about it, so you obviously are fine with her being there. And your retort is you were aware she was visiting family, however her residence was in Ontario. That you believed it was in the child's best interests to be familiar with their entire family. That it wasn't your intention that the child be allowed to reside there full time.

                    As for your current order, interm orders tend to become permanent.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
                      Your ex could surely get a job in a law firm in your area. The fact that she is bi-lingual and has experience with Quebec law would be an asset.

                      Depending on the nature of law your ex is in, she could easily get a job at one of the larger law firms in Ottawa. It may not be a clerk/paralegal position initially, but it may work up to that. If she really wants to work in Ontario, all she needs is the ILCO courses ( Exam - Course Schedules ) and she could get a job quite easily.

                      All that aside, I hear a lot of "she could" "she may" "she can". What the ex may do and what she has done are different things. Yeah, she can say she you knew that she was always there and didn't say anything about it, so you obviously are fine with her being there. And your retort is you were aware she was visiting family, however her residence was in Ontario. That you believed it was in the child's best interests to be familiar with their entire family. That it wasn't your intention that the child be allowed to reside there full time.

                      As for your current order, interm orders tend to become permanent.
                      Fantastic post. Great info.

                      Thanks HD.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Thanks HD,

                        So, to sum up, it appears the consensus of the forum, as previously noted, is that both notice and consent for provincial crossings should be a non-issue.

                        We should continue the discussion re: proper etiquette relating to medical appointments for which, I think, was the 2nd part of the original question as to how separated parents handle appointments.

                        I took medical and the ex took dental. I can’t recall that that we did that for any particular reason – it just seemed to make sense at the time. We didn’t notify the other of regular checkup appointments other than vaguely mentioning appointments had been booked, and we only updated the other if anything interesting happened. Our kidlet was a normal, healthy kid – never anything to report really. Of course, if she'd fractured or broken a bone I would have immediately advised, as I would anticipate the ex would do likewise.

                        Maybe we’ve been parallel parenting? How many posters with shared, with sole, or with joint, attend all medical and dental appointments or require notice of same?
                        Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Not sure if it's the consensus. Posters such as Blink, Rioe and many others that PM'd me had a different take. I think in many circumstances that you are indeed correct. It's just not needed .. non-issue for sure. However .. I disagree with you that it's a primitive, old clause that has no place in new age parenting. I read many cases where it's applied .. in 2015 and other recent caselaw.

                          In any case I stand by my statement that every case is very different, as I sure you would agree.

                          I would tend to place the same emphasis on "details of the case" on appt's. Your ex wasn't attempting to portray your child as a victim with emotional issues, trying to seek out DV witness counselor's for a child who has never witnessed violence. Again .. I think it depends on the details of the case.

                          I certainly dont need to be at appts. But I was a father who attended every appt and was very involved before the abduction. I would like to be kept up to date on appt's, when they are and how they went. Just as my ex would for my appt's with D4.

                          If there's a dental appt approaching for D4 and she's a bit anxious about it, (or medical appt where she may have a needle) it may benefit her to have both parent's support .. and to discuss it and prepare her for it. Just as both parents did prior to separation.

                          I dont think that should all change the second parents split. IMO .. its about the kids well-being. Whats best for them is the best etiquette to adhere to. Just my $0.02.
                          Last edited by LovingFather32; 09-02-2015, 11:42 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            FWIW Kid's father and I have a sort of de facto parallel parenting. I deal with medical and dental stuff, he deals with ophthalmologist (Kid wears glasses). We didn't formally plan this, it just sort of worked out. I keep him apprised of the outcomes of regular checkups and vice versa. We don't both attend appointments, because I have no desire to see him (and I think it's mutual) and I don't think Kid really needs both parents in the same room. (The one minor medical emergency that occurred involved a sprain - ex didn't tell me he'd taken Kid to the ER until I got a call out of the blue saying that "the x-rays don't show any fractures" because my name is on Kid's contact info - but after I expressed myself somewhat strongly about the importance of being notified about any urgent medical situations, I don't think that will happen again).

                            I did put a clause in our order to the effect that "each parent shall inform the other of information relating to Kid which is not independently available to both parents", so that e.g. when I had a one-to-one conversation about Kid's classroom placement with the principal I told ex about it, just to let him know what the principal said to me about Kid, but I don't bother to remind him about meet-the-teacher night and things like that because that info is accessible to him through other means, like the class website.

                            I think that in unfriendly divorces, communication between the exes should be minimized for the sanity of all involved. Requirements for consent for various activities, unless that consent is really really necessary, just add to the burden of communication (both the seeking and granting of consent, and the hassles that follow when one party decides not to follow the unenforceable requirement and the other party gets ticked off ...). Every case is different, of course, but in general, the less Q&A that goes back and forth between the parents, the better.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I think the parallel model would be very effective.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                My situation is similar to LF32's in that I am seeking joint (alternatively sole) and ex is seeking sole and want to make all decisions.

                                At our TMC last month, both my ex's LAO lawyer and our case management judge brought up Parallel Parenting with each of us having separate "domains" of care where we would have final say.

                                This would work for me, (e.g. She has medical, I have education).

                                I like Stripes scenario too where even different areas of medical/dental are shared on a day to day basis, especially since ex doesn't have transportation to get to specialists appts out of town, but she can easily manage S2's visit to a GP and dentist.

                                As for the interprovincial travel issue, the clause that neither of us can travel with S2 outside Ontario without written consent or court order is currently in place and will be in our final order. We both want it there.

                                That said, we live hundreds of miles from a provincial border but not that far from the US border. Travel outside the country will definitely require written consent from the other parent for the foreseeable future.

                                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