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
  #11  
Old 04-12-2020, 10:27 AM
OpenSesame OpenSesame is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 21
OpenSesame is on a distinguished road
Default

Thank you. Does sending her the decision mean serving her notice? Or can it be as simple as an email outlining what we are filing an application, etc.

And for the filing itself it's just the Notice of Motion and the Affidavit, correct? We have never done this before although I'm sure I can find other information about it here... thanks again.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-12-2020, 11:03 AM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,146
rockscan will become famous soon enoughrockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

Its not official to send her the decision. That is simply a notice on your own. You would word it along the lines of ďthe court has ordered children to continue to see both parentsĒ type of thing. Your partner knows how to speak to his ex.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-13-2020, 02:32 PM
Berner_Faith Berner_Faith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,361
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
To start with the kids should not be going to their grandparents. There are thousands of people working from home without child care who are following the recommendations on staying home and your family is not an exception. The kids should be at your homes when they are on his time.

That said, she cannot withhold access. You can file an urgent motion and it will be heard by phone. You may want to start by sending her the decision and outlining that you will seek costs to enforce the parenting time and then have your paperwork ready to file.

From there keep the kids home.

At home child care is still allowed for those who care for under 6 children... going to their grandparents for child care would be no different than going to a home daycare provider. Yes thousands may be working from home without child care but there are still options for others.

I think for me it would depend how isolated the grandparents are. Do they leave the house to get groceries, etc or are they taking advantage of grocery deliveries and such. I can certainly understand his exís point of view, however only the judge can make the decision to suspend his parenting time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-13-2020, 03:18 PM
OpenSesame OpenSesame is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 21
OpenSesame is on a distinguished road
Default

Where we live grocery deliveries are booked out a month in advance so not really practical. Grandpa provides an essential service but limited interactions with people mostly animals (veterinarian).

I'm not sure how the court would look at this case. From a practical standpoint, I don't see my son going to stay with his grandparents being any different than if he were going to stay with his bio-dad (which he doesn't as bio-dad lives out of the country). The one obvious difference being that there's no "access arrangement" for the grandparents it's just how we have been coping with this mess.

From a philosophical standpoint, it's supposed to be the basic right of all parents to "parent as they see fit" which includes assessing risk and making choices based on personal views. Technically, I can smoke cigarettes around my kids, bruise them, verbally abuse them, take them sky diving, race car driving, bungee jumping, cliff diving... but holy hell breaks loose if we decide it's an acceptable level of risk to visit the grandparents?

Brave new world...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-13-2020, 06:11 PM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,146
rockscan will become famous soon enoughrockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenSesame View Post
Technically, I can smoke cigarettes around my kids, bruise them, verbally abuse them, take them sky diving, race car driving, bungee jumping, cliff diving... but holy hell breaks loose if we decide it's an acceptable level of risk to visit the grandparents?
Some of those you canít without consequences.

The problem is that you are dealing with an irrational parent and if your husband wants to see his kids he needs to play along. Itís not forever and the impact is low and manageable. You have to ask yourself: is it worth him dealing with an unreasonable person?

Where we are weíve been given the message donít go visiting, donít go see people, donít let people who donít live with you come visit etc.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-13-2020, 06:55 PM
Abba435 Abba435 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 395
Abba435 has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Public Health Agency of Canada provides guidance. Same for the Provinces, municipalities and police forces. Some have been made law such as Ontario's 5 people limits.. I would hope that anyone that is trying to limit or is faced with imposed limitations could refer to these as reliable references. I have and it was very helpful.

REASONABLE is the key. Reasonable also assumes rational and informed. Dealing with irrational and unreasonable is the raison d'etre of this forum and many law practices.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-heal...topic=tilelink
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-14-2020, 09:21 AM
LovingDad1234 LovingDad1234 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 244
LovingDad1234 is on a distinguished road
Default

I agree with Rockscan. People should only be interacting in-person with people they live with under the same roof. There are far too many people out there taking exceptions, such as "Oh, its only the grandparents and they don't go anywhere anyhow". Keep in touch with them via phone or Skype.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-14-2020, 10:34 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,142
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Just as an FYI this case law from The Honourable Mr. Justice Pazaratz has 21 references as of today.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...04.html#citing

It simply demonstrates the sad state of affairs in family law. Lawyers as officers of the court need to do better. There are a number that the judges had to distribute copies of this case law to the lawyers. Its pathetic to read that lawyers are not informing themselves.

Judges should start ordering costs against the lawyer who is assisting a bad argument and who's party fails to succeed in using this unfortunate pandemic to "win" in a custody and access dispute.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-14-2020, 01:26 PM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,146
rockscan will become famous soon enoughrockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

Its too bad they canít introduce a fee for stupid stuff like this. Withholding your kids unreasonably? $1000 in addition to legal fees. Almost like a contempt fee. Might reduce the stupidity.

My husband was lucky to have a good lawyer who was up front with him about costs. He would tell us flat out we would lose and how much it would cost us.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-14-2020, 01:34 PM
Kinso Kinso is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 226
Kinso is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
It simply demonstrates the sad state of affairs in family law. Lawyers as officers of the court need to do better. There are a number that the judges had to distribute copies of this case law to the lawyers. Its pathetic to read that lawyers are not informing themselves.

Judges should start ordering costs against the lawyer who is assisting a bad argument and who's party fails to succeed in using this unfortunate pandemic to "win" in a custody and access dispute.
This won't happen until the fundamental role of lawyers is changed, which should occur in family court. As Officers of the Court we do have obligations which myself and many of my peers take seriously. However, we also have obligations to take our client's instructions, even when there is personal disagreement. This is not unlimited of course, but drawing the line looks a lot easier after the fact than it is in the moment.

If a client tells me to lie, it's a straight up dealbreaker. If the client wants to advance a long-shot argument, I might encourage them not to, but sometimes they are steadfast. It can be difficult to tell before judgment what is the 'long-shot' argument, and what was the 'impossible' argument.

Furthermore, clients lie to their lawyers. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes because they're lying to themselves. We try to dig in, but we have to accept our client's representations as true unless we know it's a lie, which is rare. To do less is to do a disservice to client's who may have unbelievable tales but are in fact telling the truth.

It's not fair to read the judgement alone as if the lawyer could have be predicted the other side's narrative. That's Monday morning quarterbacking at its' finest. Only if you had the benefit of the client meetings, the competing affidavits and the stuff that doesn't exist on court records could you properly assess the quality (or lack thereof) of the lawyer's actions.

Change can't come from lawyers alone. In fact, failing to advance 'long-shot' arguments is unethical from the point of view of the lawyer, at least the way the adversarial system is setup. Financially punishing them for losing would run into direct conflict with their roles as advocate.

However, where it is clear that:

- The argument was meritless; and
- The lawyer themselves was responsible for the unnecessary increase in costs.

The court can and has ordered costs against the lawyer personally. But since it's hard to show the first and nearly impossible to show the second, it's very rare.

Last edited by Kinso; 04-14-2020 at 01:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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
Case Law, Case Conference and Mediation Free-spirit Divorce & Family Law 5 09-30-2012 09:55 PM
Case Conference first timer Divorce & Family Law 6 02-14-2012 04:21 PM
Costs in Bad Faith mom2three Financial Issues 1 10-24-2011 04:19 PM
Postponing Case Conference frustrateddad1970 Divorce & Family Law 2 06-18-2011 11:38 AM
No doc been served from Respondent for case conference nick2009 Divorce & Family Law 6 01-22-2010 07:38 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:05 PM.