Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Divorced Dad moved away

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Divorced Dad moved away

    I am trying to help out my wife with her ex-husband. I have searched the internet for a similar problem, but I've been unable to find anything. I'm hoping someone can help us out!

    My wife's ex-husband left her with their son was 6 months old. The resided in the same city for 2 years, during which time they had joint custody, with the boy spending alternate weekends with the dad. After almost 2 years the dad was fired from his job, and after a while decided he needed to move to Calgary to find work. Once relocated, he flew back to see his son, or would take him back to Calgary to show him off.

    At age 5 the son began to fly to Calgary as an unaccompanied minor. Initially this was great fun for him, as he got to prove what a "big boy" he was, and the flight attendants on both AC and WJ took great care of him. However, he is now almost 9, and the constant travel (10 time a year) has begun to wear on him within the last year.

    We have asked that the dad perhaps make visits here to help cut down on the travel (his parents live in the same city as us, so he's got a free place to stay), however the dad is insistent the boy travel to Calgary to see his new family (the dad is now remarried with 2 boys).

    My question is this:
    Would a judge rule that the dad HAD to fly here for the occasional visit, so that the son could reduce his travel to say 6 visits. The dad claims that it is important to see his family in Calgary, but isn't the ultimate point of the visit to see his dad, therefore it doesn't matter where that occurs? The judge in his initial ruling suggested visits in our city would be encouraged, as we have done on several occasions, however the dad has only taken advantage of this once in the last 2 years.

    Any light that can be shed on this would be greatly appreciated!

    Again, HE WAS THE ONE THAT LEFT TOWN!

    Just trying to help out.

  • #2
    loud and clear

    Comment


    • #3
      You let a 5 year old travel alone and trusted employees ? Would you trust them to carry your best diamond ring for you? Read this....

      Child flying alone allowed to leave plane with stranger


      Jim Farrell, CanWest News Service

      Published: Sunday, December 16, 2007
      EDMONTON -- An Edmonton couple are enraged that after spending $100 extra so their five-year-old daughter would get special attention as an unaccompanied minor on a flight to Montreal, she was apparently able to leave the WestJet flight in the company of a stranger.
      Thursday morning's flight by Sara-Maude St-Louis was her first solo trip as an unaccompanied minor.
      She was to be met at the Montreal airport by her birth father, Steve St-Louis, so she could spend the holidays with him.

      Mother Genevieve Pelchat and Sara-Maude's stepfather, Philippe Boissy, say they were re-assured by WestJet Airlines Ltd. that for the $100 extra fee she would be monitored and cared for throughout the flight.
      "As Sara-Maude was led onto the plane by a girl from WestJet who held her by the hand, she looked over her shoulder, smiled and said 'See you mom -- I love you,' " Pelchat said Friday.
      But her family says they got less than they'd bargained for.
      Pierre Cataford, who sat beside Sara-Maude in Row 3, said Friday in a phone interview from his home in Gatineau, Que., that the flight crew ignored the child.
      "Two hours after the flight left, we got a call from Genevieve's ex-husband," Boissy said Friday.
      "He told us he had just got a call from some person on the plane [Cataford], telling him she was scared and he had explained to her that everything was OK."
      Cataford made the call while the plane was on the ground in Winnipeg, picking up more passengers.When the plane touched down in Winnipeg, Cataford said, the little girl initially thought they had arrived in Montreal and was prepared to get off. He told her to stay put.
      When the plane arrived in Montreal, Cataford helped Sara-Maude pack her toys and other items into her carry-on and put on her coat, then led her off the plane.
      No one stopped them or queried Cataford, even though the little girl had a large sign around her neck indicating she was an unaccompanied minor.
      "In the luggage area, they were looking for her dad. They found him," Boissy said. "About then, a flight attendant came out of the plane with a security guy, really upset, saying they had lost a little girl."
      CBC News reported WestJet said it is investigating the incident.
      "The situation is of utmost concern for WestJet, and we are taking this matter very seriously," the company said in a statement. "We have apologized to the parents of the child and are doing all that we can to ensure that this does not happen in the future."
      CBC also reported that Canada does not have a policy that makes it mandatory for airlines to look after children who travel alone.
      Boissy and Pelchat want some answers. They have demanded their money back from WestJet. The airline has already offered the pair free flights to Montreal so they can accompany Sara-Maude back to Edmonton, Boissy said.
      I know he is 9 now, but I would NEVER leave my child alone like this. I shudder to think... I remember as a young adult, taking a bus trip home from University, having my leg deliberately rubbed by a man with his coat on his knee. I stood up and made a scene that mortified him. But it happened so easily....

      Anyway I must get to your question. The Dad has the right to see his son and should be able to. I can see that he wants his kids to know each other. However, expecting the son to fly about every 5 weeks is way out of line IMHO. It's a case of the father putting his wants ahead of his son's. I would imagine your son is getting into sports and other interests and developing a circle of friends. Traveling like this is hard on him.

      Appeal once more to the Dad to think about this and how it is effecting the son. If he won't budge, it may be time for a court date. Above all, children come first.

      Comment


      • #4
        My comments:

        It is cheaper for the Father to fly the one son to Calgary then it would be to fly his new family to Ontario. I know you mentioned that the point is to see the Dad, but I would counter with the fact that your stepson now has two brothers that probably want to see him and a stepmom as well. So really, I can see the Dad's point of view.

        I can also imagine that flying to and from Calgary that often in one year (I do it once to twice a year and I find that's enough) must be a little draining on him.

        Is your stepson the one complaining about it to you and his Mom or do you two just have a feeling it is starting to drain him?

        Anyway, I honestly think that if the Dad came out here a couple of times a year alone, once or twice with the family and your stepson could go to Calgary the other times, it would be a prety good compromise.

        Has the Dad actually refused to come to Ontario for any of the visits?

        Comment


        • #5
          Regarding the WJ incident - you don't have to remind me of this! Believe me when I say it sent a chill up every spine of parents who routinely have to deal with this. WJ cancelled their UM program after this, and to this day still do not allow them. AC is the only airline that we can use, which further adds problems as we must now stick to only their flight schedule. As for "letting" him travel alone, that was the judge's decision, certainly not ours. I couldn't agree more that it's a rediculous burden to put on a child.

          Regarding the dad travelling out - we have no problem with the son visiting Calgary, and I agree it is beneficial to see his step-brothers. Our point is that it shouldn't have to fall on the kid's shoulders EVERY time to travel. Coming out here a few times, including once or twice with the family, would be a HUGE relief to the son. We have requested no fewer that 30 times that the dad visit here to be part of the son's life HERE (rep. hockey, school, baseball, friends, etc), but he continues to say it doesn't work with his schedule. The obvious reason is it's a power issue with him, and he doesn't feel it's up to him. BTW, dad's got season tickets to the Flames, so it's not like money it stupid tight or anything.

          Plus, who gets tickets to the FLAMES? Does that not say enough??? :0

          Comment


          • #6
            Hey now! The Flames are okay My son-in-law lives in Calgary now and was brought up in TO so he has a real problem with loyalties. But he says you don't dare not go to a game without a Flames jersey on.

            So this whole mess was a judge's decision. If the old fool had a 5 year old grandson, I bet he wouldn't make him do it. I believe all kids should see their parents as equally as possible (unless there is abuse or something like that) but this making him fly so much is really nuts. What a selfish A$$hole.

            Comment


            • #7
              Honestly, i would just tell the dad that the child will no longer be flying there every 5 weeks, that he will come for a visit every ten weeks and that if he wants to see his son in between, he can fly to Ontario. Don't ask his permission, just do it. If he wants to take it to court, let him.
              The child did not ask for a 'second family' It is not his burden to have to keep in touch with them. This is a problem the father created by moving away, and starting another family. Let him solve it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jankes71 View Post
                Honestly, i would just tell the dad that the child will no longer be flying there every 5 weeks, that he will come for a visit every ten weeks and that if he wants to see his son in between, he can fly to Ontario. Don't ask his permission, just do it. If he wants to take it to court, let him.
                The child did not ask for a 'second family' It is not his burden to have to keep in touch with them. This is a problem the father created by moving away, and starting another family. Let him solve it.

                And that is where the trouble starts. Not talking and the whole "just do it" way of thinking. In a divorce and child issues when one side has the attitude of I am going to do what ever I want, when I want, it goes downhill pretty quick.

                Is flying that much hard on a child, probably. I have never flown so I have no idea about that. I like one members suggestion that the son flies out and then the father flies here the next time. None of my business really but who pays the costs associated with the trips for the son. Does the father not want to spend time at his parents with his son?

                Comment


                • #9
                  I do not think it is wise in any case to ever change an existing access regime.
                  Custodial parents do not have the right to unilaterally change access even if they feel it is in the best interests of the child.

                  In order to protect yourself I would suggest that you take the issue back to court as a material change of circumstances for the child.
                  I would also seek to have OCL involvement so that they can assess the situation and speak on behalf of the son.

                  We are the non-custodial family, living a long way from the ex and dad's child. When we were told that travel was now too draining, after 6+ years of a solid routine, the ex unilaterally decided on an access changes and we took it to court and the judge gave her a verbal tongue lashing (a) for going against a court order and for having made the decision without the courts consent and without just cause. Just because the child was getting older and was more involved with after school activities and friendships does not give grounds for a change in access because the child "does not feels like it” or finds the travel tiring. And it is very important that the son be apart of his siblings lives. That's how a court ruled for us, and did not allow the request that dad travel to the city of the child and stay in the city alone or with his new family, as it was unjust and denied the child the right to be part of his/her step family.
                  The judge said it would be no different that if the mother had a second family and dad decided that it wasn't important for the child to be there for important family events. Mom would be furious if the child they shared was not around for her new families special days etc. The judge felt that the quality of the visit away from our home would be more of a detriment than a solution to the physical tiredness of traveling. What quality can a visit be if it in not in a home/family environment, and staying with family in a separate home is no different from visiting, you just are not comfortable and cannot relax and enjoy each other’s company, (and we’ve tried this route as well, packing the family up and staying with family close to the child)

                  I think you will be hard pressed to change the access regime at this point unless you have OCL involvement that clearly shows that the child is indeed suffering emotionally and physically, otherwise, the status quo will prevail.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
                    And that is where the trouble starts. Not talking and the whole "just do it" way of thinking. In a divorce and child issues when one side has the attitude of I am going to do what ever I want, when I want, it goes downhill pretty quick.

                    Is flying that much hard on a child, probably. I have never flown so I have no idea about that. I like one members suggestion that the son flies out and then the father flies here the next time. None of my business really but who pays the costs associated with the trips for the son. Does the father not want to spend time at his parents with his son?
                    Which is basically what I said. The child flies every ten weeks instead of five, and the father visits in between. The child could even have longer visits at these times. The father is unwilling to work around the mothers wishes, so why should she try to reason with him. Doing what is best for the child, and I don't see how this kind of a schedule is in the child's best interests.

                    Second families are extremely stressful and confusing for children, and although it is important for the child to get to know his second family, siblings, I don't think a flight every five weeks is warranted. The father chose to move away, he needs to work a little harder to make it work for everyone, not just what is convenient for himself and his other family.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I hear and completely understand how this affects the child, being so young etc, but because the dad chose to move that is probably why he is covering the costs, other wise both parents would be expected to contribute equally to enable access to occur.

                      What does not seem reasonable to you and your wife may be perfectly reasonable to someone else.
                      Just because dad does not agree to your wife's suggestion does not mean that he is being unreasonable. Negotiations are a two way street.
                      Offering up one option and not deviating from it, expecting the other parent to "come around" to your thought process, is not negotiating.
                      It's a case of mom offering something and if you like it we've agreed, if not you're being unreasonable?

                      If she were to suggest something alternate, and possible him making an alternate suggestion, what ever that may be, then that's negotiating. For either party not to deviate from their initial offer is nothing more then a power struggle, who will out last the other. Guess who gets hurt in the process. Both need to stop trying to be a right fighter, and think solely of the son, void of any personal preferences or desires.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thanks everyone for your words! To clarify some people's questions:

                        - Yes, dad pays for the trips, as was correctly noted, because he was the one that moved away.

                        - We are totally open to any other suggestion that alleviates the travel burden on the boy. If someone can come up with something better than what we've suggested, we're all ears!

                        - I agree that unilaterally imposing our will on the agreement is a bad idea. If anything, we've always bent over backwards to try and come up with alternatives to the current schedule to help dad out when needed (eg/ Christmas travel), and the dad has USUALLY been ok as well. Where we have had problems is the frequency of trips.

                        - The sports issue is a big one. The boy currently plays on both a rep hockey and baseball team. In the next year or two he will face the real possibility of not being selected due to the amount of time he will miss because of the travel. On top of that, selfishly, this also now limits our family to ZERO time away together, as any available time the boy has is currently spent in Calgary. While this is a sacrifice we are willing to make for the boy's sports, it doesn't feel like this should be the end result of the agreement either.

                        Thanks to everyone for their suggestions - I look forward to any other ideas!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          To Helpinghand,

                          Sorry to change the focus of this post, but I have a question for you. You wrote:

                          "- Yes, dad pays for the trips, as was correctly noted, because he was the one that moved away."

                          I was wondering how this agreement came about, that he pays becasue he was the one that moved away? Was it something agreed between the two of you or was it based on a court order with lawyers involved? Was there anything in the guidelines you followed regarding this?

                          I am asking becasue my husbands ex moved away with their 2 kids, and yet we were told, by two different lawyers, that we are responsible for 100% of the flights because the person who wants to "see the kids" pays. I am of the mind that the person who moved away should pay, or at the very least share.

                          Thanks for any info. you can give me.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The paying issue came while the two of them were separated, but yet to be divorced. She wasn't working (at home with the 6 month old), so financially he had no choice, plus I'm sure there was guilt on his part for leaving the 2 of them (there was another woman involved). I assume it's simply rolled over since then, and I know he's never contested it.

                            Hope that helps.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              In our case the ex moved 18 hours away for better employment.
                              was told to help with flight costs, and ended @ 50/50 for several reasons.
                              Normally judge said "the moving parent" would be responsible for the access costs, however the moving parent is the custodial parent and there is an implied onus on the non-custodial parent to cover some costs. The other reason was that her income was more then 3 times the dad's. His share, if their incomes were comparable, may have been 100%, but the judge felt that the moving custodial parent was more than capable of covering a significant portion of the costs. Dad tried to seek a greater percent to be covered by the ex, but was informally advised it would not be in his best interest to push the issue. Almost like the judge was trying to tell him he should be grateful for getting half the costs covered, and if he wasn't careful he'd be footing the whole bill regardless of the circumstances. And they say there is no preferential treatment for custodial parents in Family Law, LOL

                              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