Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shared Custody - Child's Choice

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

  • #76
    Might be helpful for the OP:

    Scrivo v. Scrivo

    CanLII - 2012 ONSC 2727 (CanLII)
    CanLII - 2013 ONSC 2364 (CanLII)
    CanLII - 2013 ONSC 4655 (CanLII)
    CanLII - 2014 ONSC 3779 (CanLII)

    Parent didn't encourage child to go to access visits. Extreme case with a parent actually egged the other parent's car.

    Note: Child got to decide at 15 despite the contempt against the parent and a 20,000 cost award against that parent.

    Moral of the story: At 15, a court will not force a child to go to access visits they do not wish to attend and will respect that.

    Good Luck!
    Tayken
    Last edited by Tayken; 01-18-2016, 12:21 PM.

    Comment


    • #77
      As for henpecking at one another, we're all in the same boat here; victims of a slow-moving, hidebound family law system and exes in various states of unreasonableness. We're all better off not focusing our bitterness and anger on each other where it doesn't belong.

      The veterans have a lot of advice to offer to the newcomers, and in some cases it's a harsh wake-up to the reality of family law and how unfair it can feel. It's also VERY good practice for how an opposing lawyer may pick apart your arguments in court.

      You have to learn to manage your emotions and focus on attacking all this legal stuff with logic, documentation and precedents. A judge isn't going to accept a "my neighbour says he got a good deal" example. CanLII citings are necessary.

      In your case, the law says that as the children are more than 60% with one parent, therefore that parent is owed table CS from the other parent. The law doesn't usually care how or why the children got there, it just cares that one parent is incurring all the expenses.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by YoungDad23 View Post

        Have faith that you have been a good parent and that a lot of what you taught your kids over the years has stuck in their brains and your efforts to provide them with a healthy, structured home will be appreciated down the road.

        They will realize their mother chose to be an indulgent "buddy" parent someday and they won't respect her for it in the end.
        For a young person you are very wise YoungDad.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Tayken View Post
          Might be helpful for the OP:

          Scrivo v. Scrivo

          CanLII - 2012 ONSC 2727 (CanLII)
          CanLII - 2013 ONSC 2364 (CanLII)
          CanLII - 2013 ONSC 4655 (CanLII)
          CanLII - 2014 ONSC 3779 (CanLII)

          Parent didn't encourage child to go to access visits. Extreme case with a parent actually egged the other parent's car.

          Note: Child got to decide at 15 despite the contempt against the parent and a 20,000 cost award against that parent.

          Moral of the story: At 15, a court will not force a child to go to access visits they do not wish to attend and will respect that.

          Good Luck!
          Tayken
          Thanks for this.

          I'm not trying to force my kids to live anywhere...I actually never was from the beginning. Many people here make that assumption, but they have no clue. I told my kids from the beginning that I did not want to be the bad guy and tell them that their choice was not one they could make. That might have given me other problems that would be worse than what I ended up with if I had done that.

          What I do know without a shred of doubt in my mind is that if their mother had not encouraged them to do what they did, but had instead honoured the agreement we had to parent these kids together, they would still be living equally at each house. I am basically not a parent anymore. Anyone that has had this happen to them knows what I am talking about. What was done is now DONE! I don't expect a court to order my kids to do anything at this point and I'm not sure I would even want that anyway.

          All I know is that at one point in this whole thing I spoke to two of my kids alone heart-to-heart and they told me in no uncertain terms that they were going to resume living with us and there was a lot of things we would change to make it easier for them having to lug stuff back and forth...like duplicate as much as possible at both houses. Then the kids went off on an east coast vacation with their mother and something happened. They came back and we did not hear from them for almost a month. Obviously something had taken place that changed the kids mind...undoing everything I had done to repair the small rift it was at the beginning.

          The mistake I made (and I've yet to hear any logical argument that I did wrong) was to confront my kids about the "understanding" we had come to. My ex responded by acting like a bodyguard jumping out in front of them to protect them from being unbrainwashed. This was all done with me and the kids by text and I hope and wish that if need be I can introduce those into my defense to prove that I was doing only what any caring loving father would do to teach his kids right from wrong and fair from unfair.

          If asking for more CS now was a byproduct of the way things went that would be one thing. But if asking for it now as a means to an end to achieve the goal you had set out to reach from the beginning, that's completely another.

          That in my opinion is why they call them "guidelines" and not rules or laws! They are not an entitlement that you get regardless of behaviour. At least that is how I have read in in many court cases already!

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by WilsonWilsonWilson View Post

            What I do know without a shred of doubt in my mind is that if their mother had not encouraged them to do what they did, but had instead honoured the agreement we had to parent these kids together, they would still be living equally at each house.
            Quite possibly true, but irrelevant.

            I am basically not a parent anymore.
            You are a financially devastated parent who is being treated unfairly by the system, but you are still a parent.


            The mistake I made (and I've yet to hear any logical argument that I did wrong)
            The reason you haven't heard any such arguments is that it is completely irrelevant if you were right or wrong. You still have not understood that one big point. Unless you are going to prove alienation, alienation didn't happen. Even if you somehow manage to prove alienation (and not living with you is not even close to alienation) you are still going to have to pay CS.

            Is that unfair? Of course it is. Who ever led you to believe that any of this was fair?

            Child support is the right of the child, and the mechanism of child support is to improve the life of the custodial parent and hope that it helps the child.

            To reiterate, child support is the right of the child. Therefore, it is completely unaffected by parental misconduct.

            Are there fringe cases where that wavers a bit? Of course, but your case sounds like it is closer to average than fringe, I'm sorry to say.



            was to confront my kids about the "understanding" we had come to. My ex responded by acting like a bodyguard jumping out in front of them to protect them from being unbrainwashed. This was all done with me and the kids by text and I hope and wish that if need be I can introduce those into my defense to prove that I was doing only what any caring loving father would do to teach his kids right from wrong and fair from unfair.
            Irrelevant. Nobody cares whether you were a good father. The judges don't care if you were a good father. Nobody cares if their mother is a bad mother. The judges don't care if the mother is a bad mother. She has the kids in her house, she isn't abusing them in a way that attracts the attention of CAS, therefore she gets the CS money.

            If asking for more CS now was a byproduct of the way things went that would be one thing. But if asking for it now as a means to an end to achieve the goal you had set out to reach from the beginning, that's completely another.
            You are not as unique as you think. Receiving child support is awesome, and many people are willing to get very dirty to get their hands on it.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by WilsonWilsonWilson View Post
              Thanks for this.

              That in my opinion is why they call them "guidelines" and not rules or laws!
              Child support table:

              http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/c...11/pdf/ona.pdf

              Where do you see the word guideline?

              They are not an entitlement that you get regardless of behaviour. At least that is how I have read in in many court cases already!
              Cool, could you give us the link to maybe two of these cases? Hell, I'll even take one.

              Comment


              • #82
                FCSG are listed in the "laws of canada" so yes they are the law.

                Comment


                • #83
                  The thing is... Child support is not forever generally. It ends some time for a large number of parents. There are indeed parents of disabled children that requires support for their entire lives.

                  Child support has some end to it... Where an order for spousal support can often only terminate when your life does...

                  Good Luck!
                  Tayken

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Janus View Post
                    Quite possibly true, but irrelevant.

                    You are a financially devastated parent who is being treated unfairly by the system, but you are still a parent.


                    The reason you haven't heard any such arguments is that it is completely irrelevant if you were right or wrong. You still have not understood that one big point. Unless you are going to prove alienation, alienation didn't happen. Even if you somehow manage to prove alienation (and not living with you is not even close to alienation) you are still going to have to pay CS.

                    Is that unfair? Of course it is. Who ever led you to believe that any of this was fair?

                    Child support is the right of the child, and the mechanism of child support is to improve the life of the custodial parent and hope that it helps the child.

                    To reiterate, child support is the right of the child. Therefore, it is completely unaffected by parental misconduct.

                    Are there fringe cases where that wavers a bit? Of course, but your case sounds like it is closer to average than fringe, I'm sorry to say.



                    Irrelevant. Nobody cares whether you were a good father. The judges don't care if you were a good father. Nobody cares if their mother is a bad mother. The judges don't care if the mother is a bad mother. She has the kids in her house, she isn't abusing them in a way that attracts the attention of CAS, therefore she gets the CS money.

                    You are not as unique as you think. Receiving child support is awesome, and many people are willing to get very dirty to get their hands on it.
                    Thanks for taking the time to break down your explanation so well. Everything you are saying makes a lot of sense, but thankfully it does not remove my right from making a case for my situation. It may very well come out the way you say and trust me, I have read all of this way before I heard it now.

                    One theme that seems to be coming out over and over again is this belief that I am trying to avoid paying child support. That is so far from the truth, but seems to be the anger a lot of people here feel, because it is being done to them somehow...not getting CS from some deadbeat dad. I am all for supporting my kids in every way, shape or form and I can demonstrate that in court very easily, because that is what I have done so far.

                    But it is called Child Support for a reason and not Mother Support. The legal system wrote it this way for a reason! Challenging the "system" on these grounds is all I am doing. If the increase she was asking for came in a proposal to make up the difference in taking my kids out to buy them things that they need to grow up health and happy (within reason), I couldn't care less if that came out to actually more than what she is asking for. At least my kids would be empowered to have a relationship with their father, as apposed to disempowered (I know that's not a word) to do anything because the money is being handed to their mother directly. I wouldn't be here if that was the case.

                    Remember, if you have been following along from the beginning, the only thing that has changed at her house is the kids living there 2 weeks a month more. Also. not to mention the fact that at this time I actually put more away for the kids in RESPs than I give her per month, while she does nothing. I'm not sure exactly how that will pan out in this overall CS calculation?

                    You may very well be right and no fairness can be had here, but when you spend almost 7 years on a given path, with all the plans that have been made on both sides and followed through on, when nothing has change materially on either side (and I'm excluding the whims of children in that argument), then can you really go back 7 years, as if nothing since has happened and sit down and figure out how support will be given in a complete vacuum of circumstances?

                    Frig I hope not for my sake...and I'm sure many others here in the same boat!!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                      FCSG are listed in the "laws of canada" so yes they are the law.
                      In the absence of better evidence to not follow the "guidelines"! If they were what you are suggesting, everyone would pay the exact same amount at exactly the same level of income. We all know that is not the case. Just reading a few court cases will show you that.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        You keep alluding to these mysterious cases. Every single case I have read on canlii for parents without shared 50/50 or less then $150,000 income are directed to follow the guidelines unless there is an extenuating circumstance like increased access costs for parents who moved with their children.

                        Keep trying to explain it how you want. Make sure you post what the judge rules on your case because I have a feeling its going to be what we've all said.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by HappyMomma View Post
                          For a young person you are very wise YoungDad.
                          As much as I hate to admit it, my mom deserves a lot of credit for keeping my head on straight since I became a dad and all the drama my ex's lies and manipulations have caused over the last three years.

                          You gotta grow up real fast when someone tries to keep your child from you (for no good reason) and you end up in handcuffs because you won't just go away.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by YoungDad23 View Post
                            As much as I hate to admit it, my mom deserves a lot of credit for keeping my head on straight since I became a dad and all the drama my ex's lies and manipulations have caused over the last three years.

                            You gotta grow up real fast when someone tries to keep your child from you (for no good reason) and you end up in handcuffs because you won't just go away.
                            I know what you are saying...I've been there. Having someone come between you and your children, regardless of who they are, is heart wrenching. You go to places in you mind that you never thought you ever would and sink to depths of sorrow you could never wish on anyone. My partner is your mother and thankfully you have her.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                              You keep alluding to these mysterious cases. Every single case I have read on canlii for parents without shared 50/50 or less then $150,000 income are directed to follow the guidelines unless there is an extenuating circumstance like increased access costs for parents who moved with their children.

                              Keep trying to explain it how you want. Make sure you post what the judge rules on your case because I have a feeling its going to be what we've all said.
                              Obviously we are not reading the same cases. There are 100's of cases on file. I tend to pay attention to only the ones that favour my position.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by WilsonWilsonWilson View Post
                                Obviously we are not reading the same cases. There are 100's of cases on file. I tend to pay attention to only the ones that favour my position.
                                Will you please post some of these cases from canlii? They would prove to be useful for others who are going through similar things

                                Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

                                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