Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Moving during litigation

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by rockscan View Post
    Im not saying you are trolls. My comments were directly to the poster and how she continues to start these threads and they just go down the path of posters being honest and her not liking what anyone has to say. I like hearing what others have to say but threads started by this poster become battles over who is right or wrong. I completely agree that her "fight" is completely based on both parties being unreasonable on what they feel is best for the children. The problem within this forum is that not a lot of people share her view and all it does is open the box of argument between all of us. We become trolls because she continues to battle against us.

    As I said in another one of her threads, the majority of us disagree so stop getting into a circular argument with no end. Posting a new thread with a new topic on how she doesn't agree with her ex's actions just perpetuates that situation.

    I agree with you guys, moving during litigation isn't an issue. He's doing what he can to create an ideal situation for the kids. He answers to the judge. Not Ange and definitely not a bunch of strangers on a forum.

    I am hoping we can stop the ridiculous pages and pages of arguments before they start. Stop posting opinions as a "question" which just leads to disagreement.
    Gotcha...fair enough.

    You just have to wonder if though if enough similar observations...posted over and over by different people...would start to get through to a vexatious litigant or whether they'll just keep "advice-shopping." (Which I classify as posting similar nonsense ad nauseum to find any one person that will validate with your unreasonable position...while ignoring the multitudes that don't.)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by arabian View Post
      "The children should have maximum contact with both parents if it is consistent with their best interests". See: Gordon v. Goertz 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27.

      "The status quo will be maintained absent compelling reasons demonstrating the necessity to change to meet the child’s best interest": Perchaluk v. Perchaluk, 2012 ONCJ 525 (CanLII), para 29.

      "To disturb the status quo, there must be compelling evidence to show the welfare of the child would be in danger in maintaining the status quo, namely the evidence must clearly and unequivocally establish that the status quo is not in the child’s best interests": Miranda v. Miranda, 2013 ONSC 4704 (CanLII), para 26.

      In the end, I think this will be the central focus of litigation/trial.

      Poster's question w.r.t. moving has been asked and answered. Time to end the thread perhaps?
      There's no doubt that the father will have to show a material change to be successful at trial. However, that wasn't the original question in this post.

      All I see from the plethora of offerings from this poster is a father...who wasn't involved enough in the past...trying to fix his past mistakes and see his kids more. Personally, I hope for the children's sake he's successful.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Pursuinghappiness View Post
        Gotcha...fair enough.

        You just have to wonder if though if enough similar observations...posted over and over by different people...would start to get through to a vexatious litigant or whether they'll just keep "advice-shopping." (Which I classify as posting similar nonsense ad nauseum to find any one person that will validate with your unreasonable position...while ignoring the multitudes that don't.)


        What are those sayings? Swallowing poison and hoping the other person dies and continuing the same action hoping for a different result? I think about those a lot with people in family law.

        We are never going to change the views we have about maximum contact. Posting the same question "do you think he will win based on x" is not going to get a different answer. You're in litigation, the only person who can decide is a judge.

        I say this to anyone posting, if you want someone to tell you what you want to hear, phone a friend or pay your lawyer. If you want the truth, post here but with the caveat that you may not like the truth you're given.

        Comment


        • #19
          I suspect that this will be more about the access schedule than custody. I am guessing the kids are around 10 years old or older and perhaps more independent but not yet at an age where they can be left at home alone or take public transportation? Mother works M - F and father has shift work. Both have had current employers for a long time? Kids have a set schedule (school, extracurricular activities). Mother has indicated in many posts that she has no problem with father spending more time with the children. So.... it stands to reason that the father should be trying to make arrangements with his current employer to alter work hours. I would think that a judge would ask if father has tried to change his work schedule.

          Comment


          • #20
            Darn .. double post. Sorry
            Last edited by LovingFather32; 04-26-2017, 12:07 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by arabian View Post
              Mother has indicated in many posts that she has no problem with father spending more time with the children.
              She has been inconsistent with that Arabian. I pulled a post in one of her threads that said exactly "I'm not comfortable giving him any extra time".. then says different things later. It's just all over the place.

              Even the judge at her SC indicated that she give him another day of access .. so he must have had a good case in that conference.

              It's fine if posters don't want to listen to peeps on forums, but now she has judges telling her she should be giving more access ... I think it's time to start listening.

              Comment


              • #22
                Case conference judges typically try to get parties to settle their differences. The judge made a suggestion that she try adding a day to father's access. I believe both parties disagree with the judge's suggestion, not just the mother. Father wants 50/50. Mother does not think that this extra day should be at her expense (weekend) when weekends are her only full day (off work) with children. That's my take on things anyhow. If that is the case then it is simply a matter of conflicting schedules is it not?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by arabian View Post
                  Case conference judges typically try to get parties to settle their differences. The judge made a suggestion that she try adding a day to father's access. I believe both parties disagree with the judge's suggestion, not just the mother. Father wants 50/50. Mother does not think that this extra day should be at her expense (weekend) when weekends are her only full day (off work) with children. That's my take on things anyhow. If that is the case then it is simply a matter of conflicting schedules is it not?
                  Case conference judges also shed some light on how a trial judge will rule given the details presented.

                  This judge obviously felt that a trial judge would rule that mom should be giving more access. That dad's trying to be more involved as PH said and this isn't a negative thing. I think he's even paid up all of his retro CS.

                  As for work schedules, I highly doubt dad will come in without a detailed plan. His lawyer wouldn't allow it. I'm in a 50/50 and I have support for driving, child care, etc. Pretty normal stuff. I'm so glad my ex got over it and avoided trial ... she's now seeing the benefits on our D5.
                  Last edited by LovingFather32; 04-26-2017, 12:28 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    At first he was "abusive", then he was "conning" the doctors, and now he's selling his house ? What's next? he wiped his ass with kitchen wipes ?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
                      Case conference judges also shed some light on how a trial judge will rule given the details presented.

                      This judge obviously felt that a trial judge would rule that mom should be giving more access. That dad's trying to be more involved as PH said and this isn't a negative thing. I think he's even paid up all of his retro CS.

                      As for work schedules, I highly doubt dad will come in without a detailed plan. His lawyer wouldn't allow it. I'm in a 50/50 and I have support for driving, child care, etc. Pretty normal stuff. I'm so glad my ex got over it and avoided trial ... she's now seeing the benefits on our D5.
                      Lots of speculation here. Your situation was entirely different.

                      Getting back to the reality... basics. Status quo of 8 years. Father has to prove material change of circumstances I believe - correct me if I am wrong.

                      If Father has a good track-record of repeatedly requesting additional time with his children and can show that he was repeatedly denied then he might have something. From what I gather he has not requested any additional time until the time that he would be required to pay additional CS. This is a tangible fact which will likely be presented. If the father can prove otherwise then who knows what the outcome will be.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by arabian View Post

                        Getting back to the reality... basics. Status quo of 8 years. Father has to prove material change of circumstances I believe - correct me if I am wrong.
                        There is no final court order in place no material change in circumstance needs to be proven for the application to proceed. The father will however have to justify why the current arrangement should be changed to whatever he is seeking. Why is the current regime not working and how would the proposed regime satisfy the children's best interests? Is the current regime in the childrens best interests? Does it adhere to the maximum contact principal ? The mother will need to justify why the current regime should be maintained and why the fathers proposed regime is not in the children's best interests. He uses kitchen wipes to wipe his ass is not a good enough reason. He wasn't interested in more time until the issue of child support came up maybe a good enough reason.
                        Last edited by trinton; 04-26-2017, 03:34 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by trinton View Post
                          There is no final court order in place no material change in circumstance needs to be proven for the application to proceed. The father will however have to justify why the current arrangement should be changed to whatever he is seeking. Why is the current regime not working and how would the proposed regime satisfy the children's best interests? Is the current regime in the childrens best interests? Does it adhere to the maximum contact principal ? The mother will need to justify why the current regime should be maintained and why the fathers proposed regime is not in the children's best interests. He uses kitchen wipes to wipe his ass is not a good enough reason. He wasn't interested in more time until the issue of child support came up maybe a good enough reason.


                          Arabian is right that it is a tangible fact that time was not asked for until the CS "deal" was expired. SC judge had a very hard time with this as well....if that is indicative of what trial judge would also think....
                          He was also in arrears at this time. A fact that cannot be ignored. I don't disagree with what the settlement conference judge said either. She suggested adding one day on.
                          I have since offered TWO. Then I offered to wipe his daycare payment right off the table. Finally, I offered to "cap" the CS amount. I honestly think this is reasonable. I believe that I am "meeting in the middle". The judge also recommended mediation which he has refused because I would like my legal counsel there with me (he wants it to just be the two of us so he can attempt to bulldoze over me). As far as I have been told, the offer was rejected as he wants to just take it to trial. Help me understand here because honestly some of you are making me question my perception of this and of myself....is it not reasonable to meet in the middle? Would the courts not want us to negotiate and compromise? 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.


                          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            If he hasn't taken you up on any of your offers then he is a very foolish man and/or has a lousy lawyer.

                            How can someone justify being in arrears for CS while building a new home? Pretty clear to me where his priorities lie.


                            Idiot

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by arabian View Post
                              If he hasn't taken you up on any of your offers then he is a very foolish man and/or has a lousy lawyer.

                              How can someone justify being in arrears for CS while building a new home? Pretty clear to me where his priorities lie.


                              Idiot
                              I don't think the courts will play the blaming game here but rather look for a resolution to move forward. he admitted he owed money and settled it on consent. there is no issue with child support to be dealt with at trial. except for the offset. should cs be reduced to accomodate thr increased costs of shared parenting if he reaches that threshold? will a judge want to lower cs with the money he's going to make from selling his home? is he going to use that money to hire a lawyer to suck your wallet dry to get you to consent to what he wants? so many different possibilities.

                              good on you for offerring all that and even 2 extra days. my ex offers less and less and didn't even file an offer at the last sc lol.
                              Last edited by trinton; 04-26-2017, 05:58 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                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.

                                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