Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Refusing to support a child’s sport

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

  • #46
    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.

    Comment


    • #47
      Ange, your ex has made it clear from the beginning that what he wants is more important than the kids. Theres no arguing with someone so intent on hurting you at the expense of the children.

      Don’t let youngdads comments get you down.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Karma2016 View Post
        I’m not going to get into a back-and-forth with you. I’m just asking if you have an open mind that there are also single dad’s, father’s, and ex-husbands who are the evil, control-freak, manipulative, bastards making divorce settlements complicated? Believe me when I tell you they exist.
        Youngdad's inability to admit that there are manipulative and controlling dads out there is why he fails to be respected as an advice giver on this site. There are absolutely controlling and awful parents of both gender. This isn't about gender yet somehow always comes back to that. In fact, it was a mom who was keeping her kids from hockey in the case I just posted. It's wrong no matter who does it.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by rockscan View Post
          Ange, your ex has made it clear from the beginning that what he wants is more important than the kids. Theres no arguing with someone so intent on hurting you at the expense of the children.

          Don’t let youngdads comments get you down.
          He's not getting me down.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Ange71727 View Post
            Youngdad's inability to admit that there are manipulative and controlling dads out there is why he fails to be respected as an advice giver on this site. There are absolutely controlling and awful parents of both gender. This isn't about gender yet somehow always comes back to that. In fact, it was a mom who was keeping her kids from hockey in the case I just posted. It's wrong no matter who does it.
            his advise is always biased and often poorly presented. even when he makes valid points...his vitriol towards mothers, in general, makes anything he says basically incapable of adding any value to the discussion.

            but I do find his posts enlightening as I can imagine what my abusive, narcissitic ex is probably thinking.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Ange71727 View Post
              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.


              I see this case law!! Great find!


              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

              Comment


              • #52
                There are MANY more like this. Try to change up your search words on CanLii. Even changing order of words can bring up vastly different cases.

                Oh, and yes, custody and access judges have indeed examined and ruled upon extracurricular activities (parent's driving/involvement) with emphasis on what child grew up with when family was intact (status quo).

                Laugh all you want.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by youngdad91 View Post
                  ...when you were in court recently...

                  And here is where the entire problem is. Ange wasn’t in court. She and her ex mediated an agreement after her ex filed a motion for 50/50 to avoid paying child support. He didn’t agree to 50/50, disagreed with spending more than the existing activities (hockey included), demanded kid go into a new sport, ENROLLED kid in new sport without agreement, fell into arrears with daycare and then forced kid to sit at home during an activity kid wanted to go to.

                  If Ange wanted to control her ex she wouldn’t have the issues she continues to have after several months of negotiating with her terrorist ex.

                  Maybe before flapping off to moms because you have a grudge you could actually READ THE HISTORY of a poster. Or if you want to put all moms on blast, take it to the political or support threads instead.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    This is the thread that never ends. It goes on and on my friends.

                    My view: Its sports. Why fight over it. It isn't worth the time or energy either party is investing into it. The kid isn't going to the NHL. Only 1 in 10 kids play hockey in Canada. You might as well go for a soda.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                      My view: Its sports. Why fight over it. It isn't worth the time or energy either party is investing into it. The kid isn't going to the NHL. Only 1 in 10 kids play hockey in Canada.
                      Agreed. I think that this battle is totemic for the both of them though.


                      You might as well go for a soda.
                      At least then nobody would get hurt or cry.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Going to just drop a reminder to keep posts on topic, and personal attacks are not allowed.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Happy New Year everyone.

                          Update: I ended up consulting my lawyer on this issue. He suggested we send a warning letter to my ex’s lawyer with everything very blatantly spelled out as to what is going on (child is embarrassed/upset, hockey was agreed upon, withholding daycare funds to force me to pay for the new sport, etc). The warning being that we would commence litigation if not resolved. My lawyer wrote the bare bones of it and then had me fill in the details (to keep costs down). This was sent to his lawyer and within two days my kid was back at hockey.
                          My guess is that his lawyer told him he wasn’t acting in his child’s best interests.
                          Funnily enough, he had really wanted to mediate this issue back in the fall but now wants no part of mediation - probably because he knows he’d get slaughtered because of all this bad behaviour.
                          My kid is happy once again, so mission accomplished....until the next time I have to spend money to try to stop his dad from being a jerk.


                          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Ange71727 View Post
                            Happy New Year everyone.

                            Update: I ended up consulting my lawyer on this issue. He suggested we send a warning letter to my ex’s lawyer with everything very blatantly spelled out as to what is going on (child is embarrassed/upset, hockey was agreed upon, withholding daycare funds to force me to pay for the new sport, etc). The warning being that we would commence litigation if not resolved. My lawyer wrote the bare bones of it and then had me fill in the details (to keep costs down). This was sent to his lawyer and within two days my kid was back at hockey.
                            My guess is that his lawyer told him he wasn’t acting in his child’s best interests.
                            Funnily enough, he had really wanted to mediate this issue back in the fall but now wants no part of mediation - probably because he knows he’d get slaughtered because of all this bad behaviour.
                            My kid is happy once again, so mission accomplished....until the next time I have to spend money to try to stop his dad from being a jerk.


                            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                            Your lawyer is milking you for money. You are getting taken. I would consider consulting with another reputable lawyer on the "advice" you are getting.

                            Arabian will tell you that lawyers who send letters are just taking your money... I agree with her.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                              Your lawyer is milking you for money. You are getting taken. I would consider consulting with another reputable lawyer on the "advice" you are getting.



                              Arabian will tell you that lawyers who send letters are just taking your money... I agree with her.


                              I didn’t end up paying much. As I said, he let me basically write the whole thing and then put his name on it. He charged me for the half hour we consulted on the issue and didn’t charge me for the letter.
                              Bottom line is: it worked.
                              Would I spend a half hour’s fees to ensure that my kid isn’t moping around the house depressed because his dad is making him miss what he loves to do? Yes, I would spend that again in a heartbeat for him.


                              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Ange71727 View Post
                                I didn’t end up paying much. As I said, he let me basically write the whole thing and then put his name on it. He charged me for the half hour we consulted on the issue and didn’t charge me for the letter.
                                Bottom line is: it worked.
                                Would I spend a half hour’s fees to ensure that my kid isn’t moping around the house depressed because his dad is making him miss what he loves to do? Yes, I would spend that again in a heartbeat for him.


                                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                                It worked at what cost. No doubt that the other parent is now plotting their revenge, unfortunately. It will come back two-fold, unfortunately.

                                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