When the Divorce Act doesn’t apply

[HammerDad]

I guess the big questions are:

1. What is the current parenting schedule?
2. Who moved to cause the 4 hour distance (likely less relevant now, but still may be a point to mull over)?
3. Why was the fathers parenting time supervised?
4. Why was the fathers parenting time limited to only to hours? If due to nursing, when did it become overnights?

It is in the child's best interests to have both parents involved in the child's live. Just because there is a new Beau, doesn't make that person a part of the child. It is best for the child to know both sides of themselves. The maximum contact rule is there to promote that. But that said, maximum contact 4 hours away from each other is unlikely going to be 50/50 split. The EOW, a few weeks in the summer, long weekends and every other march break will likely be the norm, unless the parents live substantially closer.

You seem to suggest the new partner will fill the role of the father. I disagree. They will add to the child's life, but the child will only ever have 1 father. And the relationship a child has with either of their parents is equally important.

And as for the gas dripping at the kids feet....umm, my ex is a Child Protection Worker. She's been around a lot of complaints, but I bet she wouldn't care about that. Had the child drank some or the father poured it on the child intentionally, you may have a case. But I think I spilled some gas near my kid filling the lawnmower last year......it happens.

[Mess]

Originally Posted by oh2be_free

I know this point may be insignificant, but I just have to clarify that the situation with the gasoline was not as trivial as being exposed to some fumes. It involved Father refuelling his car from a leaky jerry can with the Child standing next to him, gasoline splashing near the Child's feet while holding the car gas tank cap.

If you know it is insignificant, why are you bringing it up? You are speaking of a 2 minute episode in the child's life. I'm sorry, when I was a teenager I worked for years as my p/t job in high school pumping gas. Your stance on this is terrible. You are taking a small episode of minimal importance and trying to use this to take any level of access away from the father?

Here you have brought up my most burning question: When the child has had a nuclear family for the first 3 years of its life .... blah blah blah.

This would be obvious if you wanted to see it.

You apparently want your child to grow up feeling that their biological father didn't give a shit about them and abandoned them. When this is not true, the bio dad wants to have a relationship. But having a relationship isn't in your plans. You want to have a fantasy life where the bio dad doesn't exist, because that is what YOU want for YOU. Bio dad is inconvenient for you, so bio dad shall cease to exist.

I'm sure your child will thank you for efforts to build walls between him and his dad.

I do do this. And I hope most parents do this as well.

I don't know any parents, including those in acrimonious divorces, who do what you are doing.

[Tayken]

Originally Posted by oh2be_free

The Father chose to live ~10hours away. There was no court proceedings present during this time. I initiated the visits, asking the Father to visit, so that the Child could know the Father. He often could've visited longer but chose not to.

You still haven't answered the question. Why is there a commute (4 or 10 hours?) between both parents?

You shouldn't be asking the other parent to "visit" their child too... You should be requesting they *parent* their child as well.

Originally Posted by oh2be_free

Yes, the Stepfather is applying for custody. I heard from a lawyer that, since the Stepfather already resides with the child, he should not apply for access, and this makes sense to me.

So, you and the 'stepfather' are joint applicants or joint respondents to the Application?

Originally Posted by oh2be_free

Do you know if it is 'messing with the court' to have him apply for access, so that access were, say 30-30-30, even though the Mum and Stepfather live together? Or should he apply?

First, he has to establish himself as an in loco parent. Basically what you have stated to the court, with extreme prejudice in the processes of joint application or response is that the 'stepfather' is acting in place (in loco) of the other father. I wouldn't have advised this to anyone in the situation you are describing for a child so young. Generally you only see this in absent parental cases where the other parent is missing and the matter is an adoption situation.

Very agressive to do a joint filing potentially. Family law is a matter of perception and honestly, you are not projecting well on this site.

Originally Posted by oh2be_free

Yes, I did witness the event. I could not act quickly to prevent it as I was inside and they were outside. Anyways, we can drop this point, as you've given me plenty of information. Thanks.

If you have a lawyer, no doubt they have told you to drop it as well. If they didn't and put it into an affidavit or a letter to the other parent as a complaint or "evidence" to parental miss conduct... I would recommend you seek out a better lawyer.

Originally Posted by oh2be_free

As I mentioned above, I had to initiate visits from the Father. He showed little interest in visiting his child much until the age of 2.5. I offered plenty of opportunities. There was no court involved.

You better have solid evidence to back up this hearsay allegation. For example, emails, registered letters, an offer to settle served in accordance with Rule 18 by your lawyer, etc...

Originally Posted by oh2be_free

Of course. Why not? Its quality of time, not quantity. Do kids not form fantastic friendships with multiple friends in school and highschool, which is ~20% of their time?

Really, you are going to compare the relationship between a child and their friend (of the same or similar age) to that of a parental relationship? The father is NOT a friend but an equal parent to you.

Put that argument forward. I encourage you to for the benefit of the other parent and not your own argument. I am very doubtful form this and other comments you have made that you are being honest with this community on your position at all. I suspect that access denials have been a significant issues and why the matter is now before the courts.

Justice Mossip in Reeves v. Reeves [2001] O.J. No. 308. Paragraph 38:

Based on a significant number of studies and case law in this area, any support or encouragement by one parent that the children not have a relationship with the other parent simply demonstrated the irresponsibility of the parent who has the children and demonstrates that parent's inability to act in the best interests of their children. Children do not always want to go to school or want to go to the dentist's or doctor's. It is the responsibility of good parents to manage their children's health and safety issues without necessarily the consent or joy of their children. A healthy relationship with both parents is a health and safety issue that good parents ensure takes place.

As Justice Quinn stated in Gerenia v. Harb[10]:

Undoubtedly, there are many tasks that a child, when asked may find unpleasant to perform. But ask we must and perform they must. A child who refused to go on an access visit should be treated by the custodial parent the same as a child who refused to go to school or otherwise misbehaves. The job of a parent is to parent.

I caution you to heed the very wise words of the Honourable Madame Justice Mossip and the Honourable Mr. Justice Quinn.

Good Luck!
Tayken