Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Settlement Agreement once again

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

  • #16
    You most likely have cases but here are some that BF has for his case.

    Children are 3-5yrs old

    Desjardins v. Desjardins, 2013 ONSC 2283 (CanLII)

    Izyuk v. Bilousov, 2011 ONSC 6451 (CanLII)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

    Button v. Konieczny, 2012 ONSC 5613 (CanLII)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by good_mom View Post
      You most likely have cases but here are some that BF has for his case.

      Children are 3-5yrs old

      Desjardins v. Desjardins, 2013 ONSC 2283 (CanLII)

      Izyuk v. Bilousov, 2011 ONSC 6451 (CanLII)fficeffice" /><O></O>

      Button v. Konieczny, 2012 ONSC 5613 (CanLII)
      Izyuk v. Bilousov I already have. OMG! I soon will print this ruling and put it in a frame and on my night table

      The other two I don't have. Will try to find them at home. Do you have the links by any chance? Would be great if you had and could share them with me. Thanks in advance.

      Comment


      • #18
        I think I found both links already, couldn't wait.

        Thanks muchly!

        Comment


        • #19
          @Mother.....

          Just saying 50/50 is in the best interest of the child giving the current situation i.e. the origin of the matter is not going to cut it...

          You are half there with the case law you have thus far, but you have to tailor your argument / show what has changed thus far to warrant the extra access time

          Your argument will start off like this:

          The de-facto assumption upon a relationship breakdown is JOINT legal custody and shared 50-50 access. In addition, joint custody will continue to allow both parents to share equal responsibilities in the care of xyz and helps facilitate a proper bond between xyz and both parents.

          Case Law: Easton V. McAvoy, Supra (Status Quo)


          And then go from here...you get the gist

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by FWB View Post
            @Mother.....

            Just saying 50/50 is in the best interest of the child giving the current situation i.e. the origin of the matter is not going to cut it...

            You are half there with the case law you have thus far, but you have to tailor your argument / show what has changed thus far to warrant the extra access time

            Your argument will start off like this:

            The de-facto assumption upon a relationship breakdown is JOINT legal custody and shared 50-50 access. In addition, joint custody will continue to allow both parents to share equal responsibilities in the care of xyz and helps facilitate a proper bond between xyz and both parents.

            Case Law: Easton V. McAvoy, Supra (Status Quo)


            And then go from here...you get the gist
            Priceless! Thank you muchly!

            Comment


            • #21
              Priceless!
              You know I am...have you been talking to that person again?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by FWB View Post
                You know I am...have you been talking to that person again?
                Smoking bamboo again?

                Who is "that person"?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Smoking bamboo again?
                  Don't deny me ...queen of hearts

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Mother View Post
                    Also, Parent B says NO to any increases in the future, never ever was their response becase (as per perent B) "I don't like your living arrangements" (Patent A lives with their parent in a large 2 bdrm condo in a nice, quiet area).

                    Parent B says access increase is not in the OCL report so no increase to you ever!

                    What to do?
                    Does the OCL report say "Parent A should not have increased access to the child"? Or does it say nothing at all about access arrangements? There's a big difference. If the former, there's a problem that needs to be addressed by considering why the OCL report recommended against increasing access. If the latter, it seems pretty straightforward - don't agree to to what Parent B is proposing and provide your own counter proposal. The living arrangements you describe sound reasonable for a very young child. If 50/50 is important to you, hold the line.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by stripes View Post
                      Does the OCL report say "Parent A should not have increased access to the child"? Or does it say nothing at all about access arrangements? There's a big difference. If the former, there's a problem that needs to be addressed by considering why the OCL report recommended against increasing access. If the latter, it seems pretty straightforward - don't agree to to what Parent B is proposing and provide your own counter proposal. The living arrangements you describe sound reasonable for a very young child. If 50/50 is important to you, hold the line.
                      Stripes, thanks muchly for your response.

                      From what I see, it just defined what Parent's A access is. Like it says: Parent A shall have alternate Wednesdays to... blah, blah, blah. I didn't see anywhere that is says Parent A should not have access increased, in fact they recommended the increase this Parent's A EOW access from Fri-Sun to Fri-Mon. Parent B denies this increase and tells that it's basically not gonna happen only if they are forced to. Parent B changes their mind so often it's hard to even keep track. Parent B just very recently (like yesterday) said that they "will allow an increase of access when the child turns 12 and only if the child wants to". This is literally what they said, I mean wrote through Wizard. Before that they said at age 5, then during the OCL meetings they said at 10, then yesterday at 12.

                      Your thoughts?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Yea...the age thing. What is up with that? BF STBX wants to wait till age 8 for increase access.

                        How do they justify an age and how do you deffend a 50/50 access against this for child between 3-5?

                        Mother is saying child is having concentration issues at school, tired, saying D4 does not want to go for access, is out of schedule and emotional etc....but BF sent e-mail to D4 teacher and teacher replied she sees no issues with D4 when in school.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by good_mom View Post
                          Yea...the age thing. What is up with that? BF STBX wants to wait till age 8 for increase access.

                          How do they justify an age and how do you deffend a 50/50 access against this for child between 3-5?

                          Mother is saying child is having concentration issues at school, tired, saying D4 does not want to go for access, is out of schedule and emotional etc....but BF sent e-mail to D4 teacher and teacher replied she sees no issues with D4 when in school.
                          Well, I don't want to go to work, I don't want to cook, to cleat etc, etc, etc. It is also often the case, kids don't want to go to daycare/school, you know...

                          In our case a child was with Parent A for one uninterrupted week and did just great! So what's their problem?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Same here...we had her from 31 of Dec to back to school Jan6.2014.

                            Vacation time over the past 2 summers....its sad to see parents be this way.

                            Mom has had D4 in so many activities since age 2.5...about the same as school and now these issues are just showing up.

                            D4 is half days in JK the only activity now is swimming on wed with Dad. She loves it.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              In our case the child is in daycare full time, 8-6, so...

                              It's because Parent B is craving money and is afraid to give up a minute because then CS is only offset amount. Parent B wants ALL, MORE, MORE and MORE.

                              Parent A wants to offer 50/50 access and wants to still pay the same CS amount voluntarily, just to be with the child 50% of the time. Not sure if this is acceptable and workable though. How is it in the best interest of the child not to be 50% of the time with a normal, willing and loving parent?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Oh its about money here too....Grandma has been keeping D4 since she was 18 months without charging because it was time with her grand child.

                                Separation(2011) at 2.5 yrs of age....stil grandma not charging.

                                Exchange of info for mediation (April 2013)...that was wast of time, and all of a sudden it 200 a month going back to Jan 2013. First time BF sees anything about grandma being paid.

                                Now is CC Brief it goes back to 2011 date of separation and was raised in september 2013 to 300 a month...first time BF even hears about this.

                                She claiming extracurricular going back to 2011....stating she has asked for payment many times....some activities he did not even know that D4 was attending.

                                BF was asked about summer camps for last year and she even state in e-mail that she knew it was not covered under section 7 and that she only wanted to know if it was ok for her to attend.

                                So she wants him to pay for summer camps and grandma for care on same weeks...no it's not about money.

                                32000 a year plus 7200 in child support plus. Wants payment for stuff like ballet of 42$....is just some of the stuff!

                                BF has paid for x3 times for swimming and has not ask for payment. He knows that its not section 7.

                                Sorry...Mother just a rant here.

                                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