Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shared Parenting definition

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

  • Shared Parenting definition

    Can someone please give me a concrete definition of Shared Parenting?
    Everything I find is so vague.

  • #2
    Shared parenting can be two things. First, shared parenting, AKA legal joint custody, is when both parents have the same right about making decisions for their children. Those decisions usually include education, healthcare, religion and so on. The other part of shared parenting can be called shared access. That is physical access to the children usually week on and week off or no less than 40% and no more than 60% of the time.

    If this explanation is not good enough feel free to say so and someone will explain better.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thank you!
      That's what we thought.
      We share decision making with the ex - ie school, medical, extracurricular and expense decisions. These decisions can't be made with mutual consent or sign-off.
      We have shared physical custody within the 40/60 range.

      Ex's lawyer is claiming we don't have shared parenting because she is listed as primary residence. We were told primary residence is merely a mailing address as the children need a single address for things like health cards, etc.

      Any thoughts?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by cpartener View Post
        Ex's lawyer is claiming we don't have shared parenting because she is listed as primary residence. We were told primary residence is merely a mailing address as the children need a single address for things like health cards, etc.
        Any thoughts?
        Calling one parent the primary parent is a common tactic by lawyers. My lawyer had to respond to this same nonsense in no uncertain terms by saying in documents and in trial that the language "primary parent" was specifically avoided when negotiating our separation agreement because the children have a primary bond with both parents, and that both parents are equally loving, involved etc. During trial, my lawyer had my ex read aloud a section of our separation agreement to emphasize that neither parent was termed the primary parent. Your ex's lawyer will likely continue to try to fill up documentation with primary parent language. You should refute it each and every time.

        Comment


        • #5
          Why are you asking? Is it about control? Appearances? Or money -cs? Or taxes?

          Comment


          • #6
            The lawyer is full of shit, as most lawyers are. Well, it's more of creative interpretation of the law. Then a judge makes a decision and calls bullshit on one of them.

            I have primary residence and joint legal custody with my ex.

            Meaning, the kid lives with me most of the time but when it comes to decision making we both are have to agree.

            Originally posted by cpartener View Post
            Thank you!
            That's what we thought.
            We share decision making with the ex - ie school, medical, extracurricular and expense decisions. These decisions can't be made with mutual consent or sign-off.
            We have shared physical custody within the 40/60 range.

            Ex's lawyer is claiming we don't have shared parenting because she is listed as primary residence. We were told primary residence is merely a mailing address as the children need a single address for things like health cards, etc.

            Any thoughts?
            Last edited by FirstTimer; 06-07-2015, 12:59 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              OP. Remove that primary word from your agreement. Although it is not important, simply have it removed and have something be your primary address too. Either medical or education. The reason is, if the kids are young, it may be troubling in the future. Your ex is not primary caregiver. Laugh at her lawyer while you work on removing it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by cpartener View Post
                Can someone please give me a concrete definition of Shared Parenting?
                Everything I find is so vague.
                There isn't one.

                The closest is:

                Joint legal custody and equal (50-50) residency.

                Good Luck!
                Tayken

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dinkyface View Post
                  Why are you asking? Is it about control? Appearances? Or money -cs? Or taxes?
                  It's a custody issue being muddied by a financial issue we thought had been resolved last year.

                  Backstory (i've tried to be brief)...
                  ~ We understood it as a shared custody and shared parenting agreement. The split is no less than 41/59 favouring the ex "Jane" (for no good reason).
                  ~ Jane and "George" have equal decision making abilities and must make consensual decisions on larger issues such as schooling, medical and any s.7 expense. "The parties shall have joint custody..." however "The children shall have their primary residence with [Jane]." This is the only usage of "primary" or differentiation between parents.
                  ~ It's an abnormal schedule with 45 Limbo days, so to speak. "...parties will discuss and attempt to agree which [Limbo days] the children will be with [George] for the next calendar year". The term "which" is used, there is no minimum or maximum that George can be awarded yearly. Jane tabled a minimum of dates. Some were within assigned shared periods, thusly off-the-table, and the remaining dates were less than the previous year. Knowing that any discussion with Jane would not go well. A PC was retained to mediate as per the agreement.
                  ~ George has 23 single overnights with "Judy" 5 and "Elroy" 10. George has battled that single night visits are extremely stressful on the young children. He's requested the 23 Limbo days attached to his single nights to lessen the stressor for the kids as well as eliminating the yearly discussion over deciding which Limbo days.
                  ~ Jane delayed the PC process, costing George several Limbo days and refuses to agree to his proposal. She has no single nights and refuses to acknowledge the stressor, never having seen the kids experience it.
                  ~ The PC said he would award no less than what George already had, thus solidifying the minimum 41/59 split.
                  ~ George had offered a year of full support in order to get the agreement signed last year (delayed 3 years by Jane). Commencing June 2016 "The parties will adjust the Table support paid each year and the proportions for sharing s.7 expenses based on their income for the prior calendar year." George's lawyer was on vacation so he submitted cheques for the previous year's amount to be safe. George's lawyer sent Jane's lawyer a letter requesting the cheques be returned, that George would re-iusse in the offset amount and that reimbursement be issued for the over-payment.
                  ~ Jane verbally assaulted George in public claiming she was entitled to full support forever as she had primary custody. Jane's lawyer has responded similarly and that it is not a shared parenting plan. She also claims that George is only looking to make a significant increase his custody to pay less support.
                  ~ George's request is a nominal change of 3%, but as the split is already within the 40/60 range, it doesn't affect CS, just s.7 amounts.


                  It's our understanding that in shared parenting, George would have to pay the offset CS even if the split was in his favour as he earns more. If he were awarded all 45 Limbo days, we'd be at 53% and would still have to pay her the offset CS. George understands that and has never disputed it.

                  It's never been about money for George and only about time with and the best interest of the children. Unfortunately, we can't really lay out George's correspondence with his lawyer to prove his intent is genuine, but his driving force is his love for Judy/Elroy and making their lives the best they can be. Without dragging Jane through the mud, she has proven her intent is purely financial time and time again, with the best interest of the children on the back burner to her need for control and her personal interests.

                  Due to Jane's mediation delays, George warned the PC that the CS adjustment was approaching and may cloud the issue of the Limbo days. The mediation has now halted while the lawyers battle it out. There are now the absolute minimum number of Limbo days available attached to George's single nights, to maintain the minimum stated by the PC. Jane has previously refused to allowed Limbo days outside of those attached to George's single nights.

                  We're trying to figure out what Jane and her lawyer could possibly be thinking. The agreement seems clear to us as shared parenting. The OCL spelled out shared parenting, with no issues with either parent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by cpartener View Post
                    ..."The parties shall have joint custody..." however "The children shall have their primary residence with [Jane]." This is the only usage of "primary" or differentiation between parents....
                    To me, the term custody has more than one meaning. It can have a legal meaning in terms of a parent's right to make decisions for the child. It can also have a physical meaning in terms of where the child actually lives.

                    It is common for both parents to have joint custody (in legal terms), but the child stays with the mother more than 60% of the time.

                    The order I have in my files (not my order) seperates the two. It states, "the Applicant and Respondent shall have joint custody of the child..." and "The child shall reside with the Respondent and the Respondent shall have the day to day care and control of the child..."

                    The order I quoted above involved a mother who is the CP and the father has EOW access, but he also has joint custody.

                    Originally posted by cpartener View Post
                    It's our understanding that in shared parenting, George would have to pay the offset CS even if the split was in his favour as he earns more...
                    Yes, if he has the child(ren) in the 40/60 ball park, then he should be seeking offset CS. His ex may not agree with it, but the law supports it. There are no guarantees though.

                    Originally posted by cpartener View Post
                    ..."We're trying to figure out what Jane and her lawyer could possibly be thinking. The agreement seems clear to us as shared parenting. The OCL spelled out shared parenting, with no issues with either parent.
                    This is where things get murky. Is shared parenting a legal or physical custody term, or is it both? For this reason, it's important to have an order that is crystal clear.

                    What arguments are Jane and her lawyer thinking? Be prepared for some possible non-sense. I once watched a legal aid lawyer argue that an NCP, who had EOW access, ought to receive CS for a three week period while the CP went away for a work training course. This argument was clearly not in accordance with the guidelines, as the NCP was no where near 40% physical custody for the year, but the lawyer still argued it.
                    Last edited by Teenwolf; 06-10-2015, 09:18 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Teenwolf View Post
                      What arguments are Jane and her lawyer thinking? Be prepared for some possible non-sense.
                      Jane/Lawyer will only (and repeatedly) say that the parenting plan is not shared parenting as Jane is listed as primary residence, thus full support.
                      We're suspecting that Jane/Lawyer will claim that full support should be maintained as status quo and that she can't maintain the children without it. She plays the victim well.

                      Apart from 40/60 split…
                      ~ We must make decisions together on schooling, medical and any s.7 expense. (George is the only one taking Judy/Elroy to the counselling she insisted on) (Judy has a slight learning delay, not significant but both parents had to/must continue to sign off on assessments and schooling plans equally)
                      ~ Neither parent can enroll the children in activities without the other’s approval – NOT just her approval, BOTH have to approve.
                      ~ The children have 2 distinct homes with all necessities – children can function in each home without the other home or parent. Items don’t travel between homes (toys can travel between homes as long as they return).

                      What other factors do we need to spell out shared parenting??

                      We’re not the kind of people to drag others through the mud, but what do we need to prove against Jane? She likes to make things up and sling it our way.

                      Unfortunately, our lawyer didn't have the start date for offset CS written into the agreement, so it's kind of our word versus theirs.

                      George's CS payments are larger than his mortgage payments. If this doesn't get settled as offset, I'm afraid George will have to claim bankruptcy. How will the courts look at him after that?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Primary residence term pretty much only defines what address the kids will use for the purpose of things like school district. It has no bearing whatsoever on custody, access, parenting, decision making or child support. Period.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by cpartener View Post
                          What other factors do we need to spell out shared parenting??
                          Have you researched Canlli for case law in your province? That's where I would look.

                          Originally posted by cpartener View Post
                          George's CS payments are larger than his mortgage payments. If this doesn't get settled as offset, I'm afraid George will have to claim bankruptcy. How will the courts look at him after that?
                          The pessimist in me thinks the court will direct him to pay in accordance with the CS tables.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by cpartener View Post
                            What other factors do we need to spell out shared parenting??

                            We’re not the kind of people to drag others through the mud, but what do we need to prove against Jane? She likes to make things up and sling it our way.

                            Unfortunately, our lawyer didn't have the start date for offset CS written into the agreement, so it's kind of our word versus theirs.
                            Get a calendar. Go back over the last six months, or a full year if you can, and highlight all the nights you had the children vs when Jane had the children. Figure out the % of time each of you had the children. If they are both between 40% and 60%, you have an offset CS situation.

                            Wording in the agreement on primary residency is kind of meaningless. A judge will care about the fact that you both have the children about the same amount of time. Make sure your proof demonstrates that clearly. Printing out a calendar with the days highlighted in two different colours would be a nice visual for a judge.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Teenwolf View Post
                              Have you researched Canlli for case law in your province? That's where I would look.
                              The pessimist in me thinks the court will direct him to pay in accordance with the CS tables.
                              I’ve just looked in Canlli, and I have to say that my eyes started to gloss over. How do you know what’s relevant, what applies and what doesn’t?

                              Teenwolf – When you say you think the court will direct him to pay in accordance with the CS Table, you mean full support or Offset?

                              I should clarify “George's CS payments are larger than his mortgage payments. If this doesn't get settled as offset, I'm afraid George will have to claim bankruptcy. How will the courts look at him after that?” Based on having taken over the full marital debt and having paid full support even though it should have been Offset, George could only afford a home the next town over in a lower income area. The neighbourhood is okay, but he’s barely making ends meet because the Full Support is more than the mortgage he could get. It’s not a case of “Yay, our mortgage is less than our cs”, it’s a “Holy crap, our cs is more then we can afford but we need to provide a home for the children.”

                              Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                              Get a calendar. Go back over the last six months, or a full year if you can, and highlight all the nights you had the children vs when Jane had the children. Figure out the % of time each of you had the children. If they are both between 40% and 60%, you have an offset CS situation.
                              Wording in the agreement on primary residency is kind of meaningless. A judge will care about the fact that you both have the children about the same amount of time. Make sure your proof demonstrates that clearly. Printing out a calendar with the days highlighted in two different colours would be a nice visual for a judge.
                              I’m big on spreadsheets, we’ve definitely got over 40%. We can’t understand where Jane’s is argument could be.

                              ~Based on the payouts Jane received from the marriage settlement, George/Jane’s mortgages should be the same + she’s got a two year head start on paying hers down.
                              ~George incurs over 140km in commuting daily + parking, whereas Jane incurs under 10km with occasional commuting within a 20km radius.
                              ~George is expected to maintain his current employment (and commute) to provide benefits for the children as Jane has turned down benefits under her employment.
                              ~George pays more on s.7 and each parent pays equally on school expenses and daily expenses.

                              It just makes no sense as to what she could argue.

                              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