Moving during litigation

[trinton]

He is in arrears for child support. Of course that matters. Judges do not approve of self-help measures (not paying because you think you don't owe that much). We don't know if he made arrangements with FRO though which would save his ass in court.

I thought he settled the arrears ? didn't he consent to pay it off? he doesn't have to pay it off overnight.

[arabian]

Actually she just stated in a previous post that he still owes for arrears.

He has to pay whatever FRO tells him to pay. He has the same job for past decade (?) so he probably won't be cut any slack whatsoever. A new home don't get you anywhere with FRO.

It would be very foolish of him to go to court owing arrears, particularly when he is going to be pressed to convince anyone that he wants children 50/50 because he wants to spend more time with them. The arrears... new home etc. kind of skewer him.

[Ange71727]

He is in arrears for child support. Of course that matters. Judges do not approve of self-help measures (not paying because you think you don't owe that much). We don't know if he made arrangements with FRO though which would save his ass in court.

He did actually pay off most of it. After much back and forth and my lawyer finally convincing his lawyer he owed. There is a long history though of money problems as I've mentioned before. So even if he is not in arrears at the time of trial (and there's still many months for that to occur again) I would certainly be bringing up the financial problems he has caused in the past as a result of not following the agreement. What do you mean made arrangements with FRO?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LovingFather32]

I dont get why access is being intertwined so much with money anyways. These are 2 very separate and distinct entities. The judge wont say "No way you can't have 50/50".... you still owe $100 CS. The separation of access and money is discussed at length in many threads here.

A judge has told Ange that she should be giving more access. Conference judges provide a glimpse of what future judges will probably rule.

I just hope for these kids sake that Angie decides to avoid war over this little increase in access that judges are now recommending she try. My ex probably spoke the same about me as Angie is about her ex...actually probably worse. Judges warned my ex how trial would look. She decided to avoid war, be civil and go 50/50 and it's been happy sailing ever since. Our child is the one who benefits the most out of this. Sometimes all you have to do it try it out.....she chose this man to have children with and he's fighting tooth and nail to be more involved. Many mothers would kill for this. I'll never understand.

I dont hate Angie .. I'm not trying to badger her or attack her in any way. I felt what she feels now about her ex and I'm merely trying to let her know that there is probably a pretty significant chance that 50/50 could work in her case given the details provided.

50/50 isn't for everybody .. but as PH and others put it, the OP's reasoning are very vague, emotional and personal. A few of us here see it and her Conference judge saw it.

[trinton]

I .she chose this man to have children with and he's fighting tooth and nail to be more involved. Many mothers would kill for this. I'll never understand.
t.

funny thing - the judge said the same thing to my ex when she wanted me to have supervised access permanently.. you've chosen this man as a father to your child.. he's done everything you've wanted him to do.. and he's now going to get access..

i always have women telling me how lucky my next partnes is going to be to havevsomeone who cares so much and is so involved with their child.. telling ne how their ex hasn't seen his kids for 6 months.. etc.. etc..

my ex just reduced my access for no good reason.. OCL going to eat her alive

[arabian]

The two of you are clearly losing sight of the fact that this is not the same as your own respective situations. The poster has had sole custody for 8 years. There is nothing similar, in my opinion, to your situations and the posters besides the fact that she has children and you have children. You talk like she denies access to the father and that simply isn't true. Read her posts - she offered additional time to the father and he did not accept it. She offered to reduce his child support arrears and put a cap on his child support. He refused that. This is not what happened to either of you. So don't confuse your situation with hers.

Any decent lawyer will tell you that when you go before a judge you had better be current in your support (child or spousal) or have a very compelling reason as to why you are not. Again, the mother has had sole custody for 8 years. In your situations, where separation/custody battle was fresh, CS arrears would not have precluded your attempts for increased access or change in custody. If a person has a 8 years history, despite having the same employment, of being in arrears that person isn't going to be scoring any points with the judge come trial. Chronic arrears, despite regular income... same job, shows disrespect and disregard to the child as child support is the right of the child.

[trinton]

You talk like she denies access to the father and that simply isn't true.

Nobody said that.

Any decent lawyer will tell you that when you go before a judge you had better be current in your support (child or spousal) or have a very compelling reason as to why you are not. Again, the mother has had sole custody for 8 years.

If a person has a 8 years history, despite having the same employment, of being in arrears that person isn't going to be scoring any points with the judge come trial. Chronic arrears, despite regular income... same job, shows disrespect and disregard to the child as child support is the right of the child.

From that I have gleaned that the father has worked hard.... on his home renovations. He didn't have a change in employment and therefore should not have had arrears in the first place.

She had sole custody for 8 years as you say and the father was in arrears but in a post in a different thread states he shouldn't have been in arrears.

How many years was he in arrears for and how long did it take mom to take action to collect arrears ? Was there any delay and why?

What's the big issue if he's paying off the arrears and has paid off most of it ? He's not ignoring it and refusing to pay child support all together. is he ? he's arguing that he doesn't owe any more than what he has agreed to pay. What's wrong with that? he has a right to do that.

he FINALLY paid the arrears, although not all of it.It's a long story but he is questioning the wording of dates in the agreement. I have to just accept it I guess. It took two lawyers letters until he was basically backed into a corner to pay up. Guess his lawyer realized after actually looking closer at the facts that perhaps entering into the next conference with arrears wasn't too smart!

Doesn't matter I guess, he's a bad father because he's selling his home and posting an ad on kijiji selling his old couch.

[Pursuinghappiness]

I want to settle but I also believe his proposed schedule and lack of involvement would have negative consequences. That's just the bottom line for me and I know my kids best.

This is when I have a problem with the OP's position.

CS is a separate issue. If the guy owes CS, the courts will force him to pay it. It has nothing to do with fair parenting access.

As for fair parenting access, the reason this father isn't settling is crystal clear. He wants fair access to his kids. It doesn't matter that the OP perceives that her reasons for denying access are ok. That she thinks she's the better parent...or that she knows what the kids want...or any of the other nonsense. This father is willing to push this to court to get fair parental rights. And frankly...GOOD! That's what all parents should do if they want fair access to their kids. And yea, that's even if he did it too late. I certainly didn't give a rat's butt all the stupid reasons my ex gave for trying to block access to my kid. I went through a lengthy, expensive custody battle...just like this guy is willing to do. I would have done whatever it took...I wouldn't have settled for anything but equal access.

So yea, settling is great...unless its something you cannot tolerate settling for...and clearly that's where this guy is. And he's not wrong...he's doing the right thing for both the kids and himself. Kids do better when they have fair access to both parents...especially in their formative years. And yea, that's even IF the guy has the audacity to move into a better home and be on the phone with the builder...or has to work for a living...or whatever other bizarre reasons this poster gives for him not being up to snuff to her apparently expert eye. If you go through this forum, most of the people here will tell you that they're the better parent...including me...and so what? Even if true, that has nothing to do with the children and other parent's right to a fair relationship with their kids. Unless this guy is literally abusing the kids, he has a right to them...just like this OP does.

This guy has a burden in court but so does this OP. What I and others are trying to point out is that her reasons for denying fair access are flimsy at best...so if this what she's using as evidence, it seems extremely weak to the observer's eye.

At the end of the day, the court will decide. And I truly hope they rule in favor of the children's best interest and provide fair access to both of these parents.

[arabian]

If the father is sincere in wanting increased access to his kids then why doesn't he simply take the mother up on her offer of 2 additional days? I thought most parents who were trying to establish shared parenting are told by everyone on here to take as much time as is offered and MEANWHILE pursue 50/50.

[LovingFather32]

Arabian:

I know my situation is not hers. Mine was a lot worse and by the sounds of it..way more high conflict (allegations, OCL, abduction, etc)...you know this probably more than anybody here.

My point is that you don't know if something will work until you try it. He wants to be more involved and he's trying everything to be in his kids life more. Why is it not logical to try it out first and if "doesn't" work out then do the court thing? I don't get how what I'm saying seems so outlandish.

At the end of the day, the court will decide. And I truly hope they rule in favor of the children's best interest and provide fair access to both of these parents.

Me too. Judges are already saying that dad should be getting more access. So we can see how this will turn out in the end.

[LovingFather32]

If the father is sincere in wanting increased access to his kids then why doesn't he simply take the mother up on her offer of 2 additional days?

Because she hasn't.

Here's what she wrote on another thread:

I don't think I have indicated that I am comfortable giving him more time - I am comfortable with keeping status quo.
http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...50/index8.html Pg 8 ; permalink # 76

Arabian .. she quite clearly states she's offering him nothing extra.

[trinton]

If the father is sincere in wanting increased access to his kids then why doesn't he simply take the mother up on her offer of 2 additional days? I thought most parents who were trying to establish shared parenting are told by everyone on here to take as much time as is offered and MEANWHILE pursue 50/50.

it was a final offer. he didn't want to agree to be a marginalised parent on a final basis. good on him. he's like me. let's set it down for trial. I've got the money. you can complain about the way i pick my nose all you want. it doesn't make me any lesser parent than you.

[Pursuinghappiness]

If the father is sincere in wanting increased access to his kids then why doesn't he simply take the mother up on her offer of 2 additional days? I thought most parents who were trying to establish shared parenting are told by everyone on here to take as much time as is offered and MEANWHILE pursue 50/50.

I'm not sure I believe that he hasn't tried to work out increased access. We're only hearing one side of the story and it wouldn't surprise me if when this guy tried to see his kids, he was denied...based on a bunch of nonsense...ie, "its not a good time based on your work schedule"..."or kid told me you aren't spending quality time with them", etc. And frankly, if I was him...I wouldn't tolerate someone gatekeeping my kids away from me. I would take it as far as I could in court.

There is a REASON this guy is pushing this to trial. And I bet it has to do with the fact that he's been trying to get fair access and has been denied...that would make sense to both his court behavior and in reading between the lines of this OP's posts. This poster comes here to try to inflame people into sharing her outrage that the father of these kids wants fair access...and I haven't yet seen one even close to valid reason that he shouldn't have equal parenting access.

You can certainly take this poster at face value. But I think I and other posters are taking a different approach because when you go to court...they make judgement calls as to the credibility and validity of the evidence presented. And in that vein, I think this OP has a problem.

[arabian]

Hey you never know. Everyone has valid points and views. I have fortunately never gone through child custody/access while you guys have so you know the game.

My inexperienced view on child access/custody remains that it is, indeed, very much a financial matter. Raising a child to adulthood is one of the most expensive things someone can do. Money and access are intertwined whether we like it or not.

I suppose we could have a debate on whether trying to increase custody to change finance situation is wrong. I could see valid argument for both sides of that argument.

[trinton]

PursuingHappiness boy was I wrong about you! You seem like an intelligent person. You're not mother biased at all.

Arabian - I do sort of agree with you. You have a birds eye view on all of this. Sometimes parents get so caught up in everything they lose sight of things. Sometimes, parents that are on welfare are threatened to lose their welfare benefits unless they go to court and collect child support from dad. They then sometimes resort to false allegations of domestic violence to gain an upper hand in order to secure custody and child support so they can keep their welfare benefits. Of course, not all moms do this.

Custody access and support are all different issues. yes they are interconnected and the ability of a parent to financially support their child is one of the factors taken into consideration when deciding custody. So if you're not paying child support, that's ONE of MANY factors a judge uses to decide custody. It's not the ONLY factor. yes judges FROWN on parents who don't pay child support because a judges job is to enforce child support. Many judges taken the right approach to this that CUSTODy and ACCESS must be first decided and then only at that point they turn into the issue of child support - not the other way around.

Child support is also tied to access in the sense that if dad get's equal time, then mom doesn't get full table child support and get's less money every month. If dad doesn't get equal time then he must pay full table child support. If dad gets equal access then both parents must pay each other child support based on the difference of their incomes - which to me is the only fair solution.

These are all things that are considered by all parents but are obviously not the only thing. Some parents just want more time with their kids and strongly believe that their kids would only benefit from it.

But to come on to the forums and rant off how dad is good enough for 35% access but not 40% because he ordered a mouse pad off amazon is just ridiculous.