I have had a few minutes now to check out what Arabian was mentioning earlier and have come across several cases that reference this issue.
Here is a notable one to me:
This is from Ackerman v. Ackerman, 2017 but also references C.M. v R.W., 2005
It may be, even in view of the determination made further on in this judgment that the issues raised in paragraph 42 will again need to be revisited. I note the sheer quantity of missed hockey appearances by the petitioner. A few are explained. The vast majority suggest an intention to thwart. As a result, I do not want to be seen as foreclosing the possibility of contempt proceedings should the facts and circumstances arise. In fact, I specifically grant leave to either of the parties to have this issue revisited should the circumstances warrant. I am hopeful they will first pay particular attention to all of the topics addressed in the entirety of this judgment. Assuming they do, this may still well mean a further application and supporting materials. Orders of the court will not be disobeyed with impunity. But, orders of the court must be allowed to adjust as circumstances meander and develop. These are the messages that should come from this judgment.
[46] The words of Ryan-Froslie J. (as she then was) in C.M. v R.W., 2005 SKQB 528 (CanLII) on the topic of extracurricular activities is appropriate here:
27 Tom and Jane have put Susan and Sam squarely in the middle of their conflict and in doing so have focussed more on their own interests than the interests of their children.
28 Jane has parenting time with the children every weekend. Sporting tournaments, clinics, Achievement Days and sleepovers with friends often fall on weekends. This is not Tom's choice, but the reality of participating in extracurricular activities and having friends. This reality also applies to the children's participation in school activities such as basketball where tournaments often occur on weekends. These children love their sports. Sam loves hockey and Susan is crazy about her horse. Participation in activities such as 4-H, hockey, soccer and pony club are important to Susan and Sam's physical and emotional well-being. It enables them to interact socially with their peers, to learn what it means to be a member of a team and to develop a sense of responsibility to others. To deny Susan and Sam participation in their activities is cruel and shows a total disregard for their feelings. They do not want to choose between their mother and their activities. More importantly, they should not have to choose. Being a parent means making sacrifices for your children. Attending their activities encourages them to achieve, shows them you are interested and care about what they are doing and enables a parent to meet their children's friends and become involved in the things their children are interested in.
29 Sometimes parents who are separated will enroll their children in activities solely for the purpose of disrupting the other parent's time. I cannot find that is the situation before me. The situation has been exacerbated by Tom's inability or refusal to communicate with Jane about the children's extracurricular activities. Jane lives a mere 30 minute drive from Tom's home. She is not employed and while she has another "family" to care for, she also has a fiancé who is available to assist her and according to the evidence has a flexible work schedule. For Susan and Sam's sake, their parents must reach a compromise so that the children can spend meaningful time with their mother, brother and step-family and still participate in their activities. These children feel torn between their parents. They see their desire to attend their activities as choosing their father over their mother, probably because their mother views it that way. Tom has made matters worse by forcing the children to negotiate their attendance at extracurricular events with their mother. In doing so, he has abdicated his parental responsibility and forced the children and Jane into an impossible position.
30 Five things are clear. Firstly, these children should be able to attend their extracurricular activities while in their mother's care. Secondly, Jane must recognize that meaningful parenting time includes parents taking their children to activities and watching them enjoy those activities. Thirdly, arrangements for the children's attendance should be made between their parents. Children should not be used as negotiators or messengers. Fourthly, Jane and Tom must develop a way to communicate effectively with one another. Their children need to see that the adults in their life are behaving in a responsible fashion. Finally, these children need to be assured that there is no competition for their time or their affection, that both Jane and Tom are willing to allow them to love the other.
[47] It is expected by the court that both parents will endeavour to get the children to their extracurricular events. If one, or the other, is deliberately thwarting such activities, the court will revisit this issue. At that time, the court’s expectation may well turn into a directive on the consequences for failure to attend.
I think this judge understands that it is about supporting your kids and their interests, not about controlling your weekends to spite the other parent.
Here is a notable one to me:
This is from Ackerman v. Ackerman, 2017 but also references C.M. v R.W., 2005
It may be, even in view of the determination made further on in this judgment that the issues raised in paragraph 42 will again need to be revisited. I note the sheer quantity of missed hockey appearances by the petitioner. A few are explained. The vast majority suggest an intention to thwart. As a result, I do not want to be seen as foreclosing the possibility of contempt proceedings should the facts and circumstances arise. In fact, I specifically grant leave to either of the parties to have this issue revisited should the circumstances warrant. I am hopeful they will first pay particular attention to all of the topics addressed in the entirety of this judgment. Assuming they do, this may still well mean a further application and supporting materials. Orders of the court will not be disobeyed with impunity. But, orders of the court must be allowed to adjust as circumstances meander and develop. These are the messages that should come from this judgment.
[46] The words of Ryan-Froslie J. (as she then was) in C.M. v R.W., 2005 SKQB 528 (CanLII) on the topic of extracurricular activities is appropriate here:
27 Tom and Jane have put Susan and Sam squarely in the middle of their conflict and in doing so have focussed more on their own interests than the interests of their children.
28 Jane has parenting time with the children every weekend. Sporting tournaments, clinics, Achievement Days and sleepovers with friends often fall on weekends. This is not Tom's choice, but the reality of participating in extracurricular activities and having friends. This reality also applies to the children's participation in school activities such as basketball where tournaments often occur on weekends. These children love their sports. Sam loves hockey and Susan is crazy about her horse. Participation in activities such as 4-H, hockey, soccer and pony club are important to Susan and Sam's physical and emotional well-being. It enables them to interact socially with their peers, to learn what it means to be a member of a team and to develop a sense of responsibility to others. To deny Susan and Sam participation in their activities is cruel and shows a total disregard for their feelings. They do not want to choose between their mother and their activities. More importantly, they should not have to choose. Being a parent means making sacrifices for your children. Attending their activities encourages them to achieve, shows them you are interested and care about what they are doing and enables a parent to meet their children's friends and become involved in the things their children are interested in.
29 Sometimes parents who are separated will enroll their children in activities solely for the purpose of disrupting the other parent's time. I cannot find that is the situation before me. The situation has been exacerbated by Tom's inability or refusal to communicate with Jane about the children's extracurricular activities. Jane lives a mere 30 minute drive from Tom's home. She is not employed and while she has another "family" to care for, she also has a fiancé who is available to assist her and according to the evidence has a flexible work schedule. For Susan and Sam's sake, their parents must reach a compromise so that the children can spend meaningful time with their mother, brother and step-family and still participate in their activities. These children feel torn between their parents. They see their desire to attend their activities as choosing their father over their mother, probably because their mother views it that way. Tom has made matters worse by forcing the children to negotiate their attendance at extracurricular events with their mother. In doing so, he has abdicated his parental responsibility and forced the children and Jane into an impossible position.
30 Five things are clear. Firstly, these children should be able to attend their extracurricular activities while in their mother's care. Secondly, Jane must recognize that meaningful parenting time includes parents taking their children to activities and watching them enjoy those activities. Thirdly, arrangements for the children's attendance should be made between their parents. Children should not be used as negotiators or messengers. Fourthly, Jane and Tom must develop a way to communicate effectively with one another. Their children need to see that the adults in their life are behaving in a responsible fashion. Finally, these children need to be assured that there is no competition for their time or their affection, that both Jane and Tom are willing to allow them to love the other.
[47] It is expected by the court that both parents will endeavour to get the children to their extracurricular events. If one, or the other, is deliberately thwarting such activities, the court will revisit this issue. At that time, the court’s expectation may well turn into a directive on the consequences for failure to attend.
I think this judge understands that it is about supporting your kids and their interests, not about controlling your weekends to spite the other parent.
Comment