Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Preschool - is in required child attends. Part 2

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

  • Preschool - is in required child attends. Part 2

    Well, she's back at it again.

    Child is 4, been attending since September 2014. I have primary and joint custody.

    I've replaced the names with Mother and Father...

    It is very specific.
    Father and Mother will have access time with the child as follows:

    a) Mother will have the child on Wednesday nights with Mother dropping off the child at his daycare on Thursday morning;
    b) Mother will have the child from Friday after school to Sunday at noon on week one, two, and four of each month;
    c) Mother will have the child from Sunday at noon with Mother dropping off the child at his daycare on Monday morning on week three of each month;
    d) Father will have the balance of the parenting time with the child.


    So now Mom is effectively picking up the child on Wednesday at noon. Does not take him to school on Thursday, and picks him up at noon on Friday. Effectively, he now only attends 2 1/2 days a week out of his full time schedule.

    Her work schedule is that she works Monday to Thursday 3PM to 8PM and off Fridays.

    This is an interim order and we are to be back in court in September, some said i should wait but this is retarded.

    We both agreed on Montesorri full time back in September, 2014 and as per the school's advice, this is full time program with actually work like writing, etc. My concern here is he is not learning as he only goes half a week and falling behind which they have told me. Effectively they told told me she doesn't care about the fact that he's missing half the curriculum.

    She's violating the court order is she not? The thing is when we had it made last month, she basically lied to the judge that she was working a 9-5 job as she was fighting for week on / week off. In actuality, she kept the same 3-8 job.

    Is this enough to take her back to court as she is disobeying the court order, and effectively establishing status quo for the next 4 months till then.
    Last edited by FirstTimer; 05-13-2015, 04:30 PM.

  • #2
    Status quo of what exactly? The kid is in preschool - essentially glorified daycare. By the time you make it into a court room the kid will be halfway through kindergarten already and it will be a non issue. School is mandatory.

    Comment


    • #3
      I believe the OPs concern is that he has a court order stating that the child is to attend Montoressori full time.

      The mother isn't sending the child to the Montoressori, and his concern is that the extra parenting / access time due to the violation of the court order is creating a new statas quo in terms of access.

      Comment


      • #4
        Actually, I'm not really concerned about status quo of access. I am concerned about the fact that he's in a Montessori program that actually requires him to be enrolled in it full time.

        And no, it's not actually glorified daycare, to be as blunt as possible it's essentially early kindergarten, the child learns to read and write as well as interact. I want what's best for the child and we had both agreed on sending him there. Now she is basically just thinks that her mommy time is the most important regardless of giving him any routine, structure or best interest of him.

        I don't want to go into too many details but this is why the judge continued to give me primary custody cause I'm the friggin stable parent here.

        In regards to by the time we go to court he will be halfway through Kindergarten, the nice thing or bad thing you can say here in Alberta is I can serve her with a morning chambers application and we can be in court within a few weeks.

        My question is do I have enough, I think I do but just wanted to get everyone's viewpoint.

        Comment


        • #5
          If the court order is there and she is not following it, that would be enough.

          Comment


          • #6
            Preschool is not mandatory. Some people are against Montesorri teaching but since she agreed to it she should follow it. However, she can find a reason why she changed her mind. Obviously you are collecting points to show you are the more stable parents, and you might be, but not with this one. You may file another useless motion where she will either challenge the school or just get a slap on the wrist, and continue so again.

            Comment


            • #7
              I think some people got lost on this one. He isnt asking if its mandatory to go to preschool. Hes asking if its mandatory for the ex to follow the order to take the kid to preschool. She has to follow an order. Whether its pre school, regular school, or any other event. She has to follow the order is what I understand.

              Comment


              • #8
                again, because the preschool is not mandatory, she isnt.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Does an order not make it mandatory? To me this is no different than any other order regarding access or anything else a judge puts in an order. The child attending was placed in this order, therefore it is mandatory she take him, or she is in contempt of that order.

                  It isn't mandatory that children attend the same school every year, but most orders specify they must remain in a certain area and because it is made into an order, it is mandatory the parents follow it, until changed.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                    Does an order not make it mandatory? To me this is no different than any other order regarding access or anything else a judge puts in an order. The child attending was placed in this order, therefore it is mandatory she take him, or she is in contempt of that order.

                    It isn't mandatory that children attend the same school every year, but most orders specify they must remain in a certain area and because it is made into an order, it is mandatory the parents follow it, until changed.
                    To answer the question: No.

                    You would be hard pressed to find a judge that would enforce a contempt order on a parent forcing them to take their child to private school that is not mandatory in the Education Act or similar legislation.

                    Furthermore, the child is with a parent. The principal of maximum contact would apply and an easy argument could be made on those grounds that maximizing the child's time with a parent is more important than maximizing their time at a private learning institute.

                    As has been mentioned on this site a number of times a lot of these elements of orders are unenforceable and are "good will" clauses.

                    Everyone needs to remember that contempt is a quasi criminal finding. The threshold of evidence is that of a criminal matter in many circumstances. Contempt should not be used as a tool to force a parent to use a private daycare service when the service is not needed.

                    I would recommend to drop the matter really. You cannot control what the other parent does on their time.

                    What should the remedy to contempt in this matter be? Fine? Probation? Jail time? Reduced access to the child? In my opinion the matter is of little urgency to the court and as Blink pointed out... The child will be in grade 1 before the matter is resolved at trial.

                    Good Luck!
                    Tayken

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by FirstTimer View Post
                      And no, it's not actually glorified daycare, to be as blunt as possible it's essentially early kindergarten, the child learns to read and write as well as interact.
                      Again, as stated by others it is not mandatory. You would be hard pressed to find a judge who will order a child attend a daycare over spending time with a parent.

                      You can argue "routine", "education", etc... all you want... But, the reality is that parental time is judged to be more important than time spent at any daycare. Even an expensive one with a nice crest.

                      Originally posted by FirstTimer View Post
                      I want what's best for the child and we had both agreed on sending him there. Now she is basically just thinks that her mommy time is the most important regardless of giving him any routine, structure or best interest of him.
                      The counter argument to this is based on child psychology and lots of evidence based medicine: Children Adapt.

                      Children adapt well to changes like these. In fact, there is a large movement in parenting to provide children LESS structure. In fact, it is turning out to be a very powerful commercial marketing campaign and companies are picking up on this...

                      "Bringing Back Wildhood".
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryl1sUg6_xw

                      The counter argument you may face if brought forward on motion is just this... that the child has too much structure. Lots of judges like to fish and hunt and hate buble wrapped parents who off load childcare to others. Remember, judges are "BIG C" conservatives generally.

                      Originally posted by FirstTimer View Post
                      I don't want to go into too many details but this is why the judge continued to give me primary custody cause I'm the friggin stable parent here.
                      Correct me if I am wrong but in your original post you stated you had primary and joint custody. I assumed "Primary Residence" and "Joint Custody". Please clarify.

                      Originally posted by FirstTimer View Post
                      In regards to by the time we go to court he will be halfway through Kindergarten, the nice thing or bad thing you can say here in Alberta is I can serve her with a morning chambers application and we can be in court within a few weeks.
                      And, you can be paying costs in a couple of weeks too. I wouldn't bother. The matter is so benign a judge may think you are being a nuisance and wasting the court's time with non-issues.

                      [QUOTE=FirstTimer;194951My question is do I have enough, I think I do but just wanted to get everyone's viewpoint.[/QUOTE]

                      No. I do not think you have enough. A good lawyer responding to your material would simply identify you as controlling and cite this motion as an example. They can easily turn the tables on this one.

                      Good Luck!
                      Tayken

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thanks Tayken, could you provide me explanations for this?


                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        Again, as stated by others it is not mandatory. You would be hard pressed to find a judge who will order a child attend a daycare over spending time with a parent.

                        You can argue "routine", "education", etc... all you want... But, the reality is that parental time is judged to be more important than time spent at any daycare. Even an expensive one with a nice crest.
                        Please look at this case it is very similar to mine and this judge seems to disagree with you.

                        ATS and ATK

                        Judge said,

                        [9] Following the application, Mr. S took the position that he was not obliged to take their son to pre-school in Edmonton, and he would prefer to spend the time with his son while in his care, rather than have the boy go to pre-school.

                        [18] I recognize that pre-school may be more like a voluntary activity than an educational program, but in my view that does not matter. Children’s activities should be supported by both parents, regardless of who takes care of the initial enrollment (subject to the activity being an unreasonable interference with the parent’s time with the child). Taking a 4 ½-year-old child to a pre-school program at a Montessori school is not an unreasonable interference, just as taking a child to kindergarten would not be unreasonable.


                        [19] These parties have a long time ahead to co-parent their son. Activities for the benefit of their son should be supported by both parties. There may be occasions (bad weather, conflicts with other important activities, illness) when Mr. S may legitimately have their son stay home from pre-school, as would Ms. K in similar circumstances. However, the default position is that it will be Mr. S’s responsibility to get their son to Sweet Grass Montessori Pre-school when he has parenting time with their son. That obligation should be incorporated into the order.


                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        The counter argument to this is based on child psychology and lots of evidence based medicine: Children Adapt.

                        Children adapt well to changes like these. In fact, there is a large movement in parenting to provide children LESS structure. In fact, it is turning out to be a very powerful commercial marketing campaign and companies are picking up on this...

                        "Bringing Back Wildhood".
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryl1sUg6_xw

                        The counter argument you may face if brought forward on motion is just this... that the child has too much structure. Lots of judges like to fish and hunt and hate buble wrapped parents who off load childcare to others. Remember, judges are "BIG C" conservatives generally.
                        I agree with you to a certain point, however if you agree on a schedule, you usually have to stick to it, that is the issue not adaptability.

                        But yes, great video and as a matter of fact, on weekends and weekdays when I have him, we go fishing, camping, exploring in the forest, parks, random and simply explore so he can get his creative juices going. I think your argument of structure versus non-structure is a bad argument. You SHOULD have both, it's not one or the other. (BTW, I am providing a photo journal with all the activities we do already to show he has balance.) Bottom line, we BOTH agreed in September that he enroll full time there.

                        When a child is in a learning environment or an adult for that matter, structure probably gives them the best chance for success or am I missing something here? Should we shelve university and high schools and throw away curriculum and opt for learn what you want when you want?

                        For creative thinking, oh yeah i definitely agree unstructured activities work better as it creates a problem solving skills and quick thinking and fun. This is my focus when he is not in school.

                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        Correct me if I am wrong but in your original post you stated you had primary and joint custody. I assumed "Primary Residence" and "Joint Custody". Please clarify.
                        Sorry, I have primary residence and joint custody.

                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        And, you can be paying costs in a couple of weeks too. I wouldn't bother. The matter is so benign a judge may think you are being a nuisance and wasting the court's time with non-issues.
                        Again, reference that case above, this judge didn't think so?

                        Also this one.

                        Elder v. Meek

                        The respondent’s position is that, as he is unemployed by reason of a disability, he should become the day care provider between now and the relocation date of June 1, 2003. While there is no question that the respondent is motivated by desire to be with the child, in my view, completely replacing the day care exposure would be too large a disturbance of Ashley’s well-established routine. Having said that, bearing in mind the looming relocation of the petitioner and Ashley, an increase in access is warranted.
                        [7] The respondent shall have access to Ashley every second weekend from Thursday after pre-school, or if there is no pre-school, from 5:00 p.m. Thursday to Sunday evening at 7:00 p.m., such alternating access to commence Thursday, April 24, 2003 and continue until the petitioner’s relocation on June 1, 2003.

                        -----------
                        In both cases, the maximum contact principle argument failed even though the parent was available.....


                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        No. I do not think you have enough. A good lawyer responding to your material would simply identify you as controlling and cite this motion as an example. They can easily turn the tables on this one.

                        Good Luck!
                        Tayken
                        To be frank, you and I are neither right or wrong, a judge can use whatever argument he wants to support his decision whether it is maximum contact principle(against) or routine, structure, activities that benefit the child (for).

                        And I love the fact you are being candid with me.
                        Based upon what I researched on Canlii and the cases I provided you, myself and these judges don't think it was a waste of time..so I disagree with you.

                        Please everyone, tell me your opinion after reading these cases. Maybe I have tunnel vision and only pick up what supports my case only?

                        And maybe these judges are "C" because I live in Alberta, where the PC's have reigned forever until a month ago...lol
                        Last edited by FirstTimer; 05-28-2015, 01:35 PM.

                        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