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.
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.
Comment