Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Parenting Issues

Parenting Issues This forum is for discussing any of the parenting issues involved in your divorce, including parenting of step-children.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 08-23-2015, 12:22 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
LovingFather32 LovingFather32 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,522
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rioe View Post
Despite their interim order saying where the child officially resides, she's busy setting up a status quo that the child spends most of her time somewhere else
Precisely. This was not the judges intention for status quo. The judge even wrote in the mobility clause "to ensure an effective status quo in (this city).

Quote:
Also, once the child is in school in Ontario, it becomes harder for his ex to travel so often without making her miss school noticeably. This is why his ex is fighting to keep the child out of JK.
Thank the lord other's see it. In the judges endorsement ..she even wrote "I find that the mother didnt even look at schools in her area"

S/K isn't that long away .. she doesnt know one school on her area? To me thats telling.

Plus I remember MIL discussing how D4 would benefit from QC schools at an exchange .. in front of the supervisor.

Quote:
He definitely needs a mobility clause saying the child's residence shall not be moved out of the city without his consent in his final agreement.
Yes. This is of paramount importance.

It's like I know what she's up to but can't do anything about it. Like some posters state .. none of my business (until she moves because she built status quo)? When does that become my business .. when D4 is 2.5 hours away instead of 15 minutes in a mtl school?

At least with a a clause of her providing me courtesy notification that she was leaving the province .. I would know exactly how often. But then again .. who says she would give that notification.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-23-2015, 06:42 PM
mcdreamy's Avatar
mcdreamy mcdreamy is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,443
mcdreamy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
I have a mobility clause that deals with relocation. It clearly states that it's in place to maintain an effective status quo in Ottawa. Not another province. But it's only in effect for relocation. LF32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rioe View Post
LFs situation is quite different from mine though.
Actually, no, I don’t think it's all that different, Rioe. The OP apparently has an order that according to him “clearly states” effective status quo is maintained in Ottawa. This ex can’t set up alternate status quo. And, of course, they live in a border town, with grandparents on both sides – When I was living in that town, we moved frequently between borders for best buys on burger meat, chicken, etc. The OP’s request for notice appears to be aggressive and controlling.

And btw, fwiw, both my ex and I certainly would not have placed our kidlet into the Ontario JK system.. it is essentially an overpriced, glorified daycare system that the Ontario liberals put into place to buy votes. Was the OP's motion judge a 'Capital L' Liberal?

It's funny, I think my ex is more of a political conservative socially, but we would not have tossed our kidlet into jk, we both expect more from our caregivers. And the provincial liberals won that year based on the appeal to the typical low/middle income family need to lose their daycare bill, which is understandable.

But the political forecast is changing, and the Ontario jk might be on the cutting board. Our household is already putting some financial decisions on hold pending the upcoming election, Harper has yet to balance a budget, and overpaid teachers can’t produce a report card apparently. It is going to be an interesting election.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
I believe that in a case like mine (which is not your average case) .. that this is not an unreasonable request (In our opinions). LF32
Apparently I need to spend more time here reading and get out of my summer vaca /yoga brain mode. Did something exceptional happen in the last few weeks with your case?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
...In your opinion. There are many different ones circulating. I dont think it's a "right" vs. "wrong" thing.
In my opinion, Stripes and Links have more of an “accurate” thing going on as it relates to parenting 2015.

Last edited by mcdreamy; 08-23-2015 at 06:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-23-2015, 07:28 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
LovingFather32 LovingFather32 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,522
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcdreamy View Post
And, of course, they live in a border town, with grandparents on both sides –
Who lives on a border town? Not me. And actually MIL lives way out of mtl, past indian reserves. It's quite the drive. Not just tiptoeing over to a COSTCO for a good deal for a few minutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcdreamy View Post
And btw, fwiw, both my ex and I certainly would not have placed our kidlet into the Ontario JK system..
Thank you for your opinion on the Ontario j/k. Working in many schools I have witnessed first hand how amazing these teachers and ECE's are.

More importantly, I witness children develop themselves and learn in a holistic manner.

I'm sorry to hear that you have such a negative view of Ontario J/K. I can assure you that its much more than glorified daycare.

Politics suck .. yep. But j/k accomplish's quite a bit for a child. I can produce the gov't studies confirming this if you wish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcdreamy View Post
The OP’s request for notice appears to be aggressive and controlling.
Of course it is. Never a dull moment with you McDreamy

It's a pretty common clause. You can make it in to this big aggressive, controlling monstrosity if you'd like.

But that's pretty foolish given it's a fairly common clause in final agreements (which many posters here have)

Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-23-2015 at 07:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-23-2015, 10:20 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Rioe Rioe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,348
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Precisely. This was not the judges intention for status quo. The judge even wrote in the mobility clause "to ensure an effective status quo in (this city).

...

It's like I know what she's up to but can't do anything about it. Like some posters state .. none of my business (until she moves because she built status quo)? When does that become my business .. when D4 is 2.5 hours away instead of 15 minutes in a mtl school?

At least with a a clause of her providing me courtesy notification that she was leaving the province .. I would know exactly how often. But then again .. who says she would give that notification.
Well, you know your ex is blatantly disregarding setting a status quo in Ontario. Even without being notified by her, can you work on accumulating evidence to use in court later? Photographs of her packed car when you drop off the child? Journaling where the child says she was when with your ex? Maybe others have some suggestions for how you can prove to a judge how often your ex goes to Quebec.

Your next chance to modify the agreement is your trial, isn't it? So you can't ask for a courtesy notification clause in advance of that, can you? Or is there some way to get before a judge sooner because your ex is already defying the interim order by not honouring the order to create status quo in Ontario? These are questions for your lawyer because I don't know the answers.

Surely, you can put in your evidence that the mother brings the child to Quebec every access, instead of building status quo in Ontario. Then your ex either denies your evidence by lying and saying she stays in Ontario, in which case there are no issues with status quo and you should have equal access in Ontario. Or she confirms your evidence and tells the truth and admits that she and the child spend all their time in Quebec, in which case you point out that she has once again been unreasonable, has ignored the interim order for establishing status quo in Ontario, clearly continues to try to remove you from your daughter's life, and custody should therefore go to you in Ontario with only EoW access to her in Quebec.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-23-2015, 11:00 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
LovingFather32 LovingFather32 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,522
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Your next chance to modify the agreement is your trial, isn't it? So you can't ask for a courtesy notification clause in advance of that, can you?
To be honest I was just going to ask ex. I don't want any implied consent that I was okay with her building a new status quo in QC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rioe View Post
Well, you know your ex is blatantly disregarding setting a status quo in Ontario. Even without being notified by her, can you work on accumulating evidence to use in court later?
Evidence is the tough part. I have D4 telling me she's always in QC .. never sleeps at home. I cant resort to anything stalkerish .. nor would I.

The only real way is to get her bank statements. That would prove she was always there .. as would her phone records. The burden of proof is key here...but it doesnt seem to easy to acquire.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-23-2015, 11:02 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
LovingFather32 LovingFather32 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,522
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Or she confirms your evidence and tells the truth and admits that she and the child spend all their time in Quebec, in which case you point out that she has once again been unreasonable, has ignored the interim order for establishing status quo in Ontario, clearly continues to try to remove you from your daughter's life, and custody should therefore go to you in Ontario with only EoW access to her in Quebec.
Your wording is impeccable. The above would be a logical response and pretty much exactly how I would address it.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-24-2015, 08:19 PM
mcdreamy's Avatar
mcdreamy mcdreamy is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,443
mcdreamy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Of course it is. Never a dull moment with you McDreamy
Stop with the personal attacks. Your bullying won't silence me.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-24-2015, 09:38 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
LovingFather32 LovingFather32 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,522
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcdreamy View Post
Stop with the personal attacks. Your bullying won't silence me.
Where were you bullied or attacked personally? Because I said "never a dull moment"?

False allegations should be frowned upon not only in family law .. but on these forums as well.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-24-2015, 09:40 PM
mcdreamy's Avatar
mcdreamy mcdreamy is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,443
mcdreamy is on a distinguished road
Default

are you done editing?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-24-2015, 09:50 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
LovingFather32 LovingFather32 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,522
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Fixed a spelling error. Nobody's perfect. I'll try harder next time sorry. Do you have any advice? If not ... there are many other threads

McDreamy .. I would kindly ask that you keep this thread on track. Name calling (bully) and false accusations have no place here.

Moving on ....

It seems judges really value good parenting plans.

This 2015 case https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...5onsc5129.html

A very good 2015 read whereby the judge loved the fathers parenting plan:

which included the clause:
Quote:
Both Timothy and Alana shall provide each other a detailed itinerary of any trips or planned vacations at least seven days before the commencement of travel, including location, travel arrangements and accommodation, as well as telephone numbers Madison can be contacted at during the vacation.
Glad to see judges are still agreeing this clause in 2015 .. and that it doesn't automatically make the parent aggressive or controlling.

Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-24-2015 at 10:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
appointments, consent, health, vacation, welfare


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question about Child and Spousal Support deevusone Divorce & Family Law 13 05-09-2012 09:08 PM
Hello and child support question noelle78 Introductions 13 01-25-2011 09:55 PM
Tricky financial question sshygirl Divorce & Family Law 6 06-17-2009 10:36 AM
Moving Question Neets Divorce & Family Law 6 01-15-2009 11:27 PM
A question about common-law after divorce. Sk8r Divorce & Family Law 1 11-04-2005 10:20 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:38 AM.