Time to file motion?

[MS Mom]

It would be ridiculous for this to go to court, but...



If a motion to change does proceed, and you end up in court...



...then keep this in mind.

If he can present a material change in circumstance for requesting the change. IF HE CAN.

[arabian]

I'd try to get a new car out of it LOL

Really, if he just recently signed an agreement, the onus is on her ex to prove a change in circumstances. "Just because" doesn't wash.

[MS Mom]

If people threaten, it's because they don't have a case. If they did, they wouldn't need to threaten.

Let him make his Motion to Change because he's having regrets over the decisions he made only 3 months ago. He must have more money than sense.

[dad2bandm]

A prior poster on these forums (don't quote me) had this to say:

There is no specific rule that says you have to wait for a certain amount of time before you file a motion for change (Form 15) except in the case of child support payments which require six months. That does not appear to be a rule either but a policy of the Ontario Court of Justice. I got the info from calling the court"

I don't recall seeing any 6 months hard-rule either, in my past perusal of the family law rules, except in child support either. But again, don't quote me.

One should not file a motion to change, without good reason, and I guess it would be up to the judge/court to decide if the reason has merit.

[Berner_Faith]

I agree dad2b... I just spent the last half hour searching the web, looking at the family law rules and I couldn't find anything regarding a time frame, other than CS. The only thing the OP may have going is that there has been no material change in circumstances, although the ex may argue that fact.

[stripes]

I'd say the OP has more going for her than that. She has a signed separation agreement, with the ink barely dry, for which both parties had ILA, in which they came to consensus on the question of transportation. The consensus (that he would do the bulk of the driving) is not on the face of it grossly unfair, given that we aren't talking about thousands of kilometres or daily treks and that he's got the family vehicle. As to why the ex agreed to it - presumably he had his reasons at the time. I'm having a hard time believing that a judge would let him change his mind just because he feels like it.

Like I said before, if the ex is generally reasonable and is just having second thoughts about the driving commitment, maybe the OP could agree to meet him halfway. But if he is petty, controlling, and thinks the rules don't apply to him - then any accommodation on the OP's part would be seen as him having "won", and the OP can get set for dozens more of these stupid ex tricks in the future. Sometimes you have to take a stand which may seem petty because you have to lay down expectations for the future. Here, the expectation is "we will abide by the separation agreement we both signed".

[MS Mom]

Precisely.

We also, as outsiders, have no idea what the OP gave up to get this agreement that includes the driving. To say her agreement is unfair without knowing the whole process of negotiation they went through is plain argumentative.

He must show a material change in circumstance. He can argue that it's now winter, and that's a material change. However, the judge will likely disagree - ESPECIALLY since the agreement hasn't had a chance to breathe even and he's requesting changes.

If he were reasonable, he wouldn't be requesting, demanding or threatening. He'd be asking. But, he's not. He's telling her to do what he says and that isn't a good enough reason to do anything.

[Rioe]

Maybe remind him that doing the driving himself (ie, dropping them off to you at your house at 7pm or whatever instead of you picking them up at 4pm so you can have them home again by 7pm) gives him more time to spend with the children. This can only be a good thing since he won't know where he'll be next year and how hard access will be then.

Or, you can agree that you will do half the driving (everybody does their own pickups) for now because you recognize that it is fair, but make it clear that this is a temporary arrangement and when he gets his job somewhere else, you will revert to the court order.

Or you could wave the agreement in his face and insist he take you to court and take your chances there.

If you call his bluff and don't come get the kids, what do you think he'll do? Do you really think he'll get up early and drive 1.5hrs to get them to school Monday morning? Probably not good for the kids to think that you didn't want to see them Sunday evening and have to get up really early in the morning.

[firhill]

If I were Dad, I think it would be very easy to present in a motion, that 50/50 shared driving for exchanges take place, because Dad doing all the driving in entirety, cuts into the kids time with him too much, especially during winter and bad weather, given the 1.5 hours of driving distance, each way.

I'm fairly sure a judge would rule in his favour.

I agreed (interim order) to do all the driving because it got me more access time with my daughter, and was therefore, IMO, in the best interests of the child.
I do not have a problem with it and won't as long as the travel distance doesn't increase.

But, just in case it does increase........

Are you speaking from personal experience or is there some case law you can link to support this?

[MS Mom]

Maybe remind him that doing the driving himself (ie, dropping them off to you at your house at 7pm or whatever instead of you picking them up at 4pm so you can have them home again by 7pm) gives him more time to spend with the children. This can only be a good thing since he won't know where he'll be next year and how hard access will be then.

Or, you can agree that you will do half the driving (everybody does their own pickups) for now because you recognize that it is fair, but make it clear that this is a temporary arrangement and when he gets his job somewhere else, you will revert to the court order.

Or you could wave the agreement in his face and insist he take you to court and take your chances there.

If you call his bluff and don't come get the kids, what do you think he'll do? Do you really think he'll get up early and drive 1.5hrs to get them to school Monday morning? Probably not good for the kids to think that you didn't want to see them Sunday evening and have to get up really early in the morning.

He's putting the kids in the middle if he refuses to bring them home. No that isn't good for them, but that's on him, not the OP. He can't unilaterally make that decision either. That's why there is an agreement.

What if, for instance, the OP said she's not happy with the SS/CS she was awarded and asked him for increases in the same manner he's asking for changes. Just demanding and threatening court. Everyone would be telling the OP she's out of line. Or for access - maybe she decided that 50/50 is too much for whatever reason and just change the agreement to suit. Again, out of line.

Why is he not out of line for insisting on changes? Any change?

There's a reason for the material change in circumstance test. It's so people don't make agreements they'll only apply to change for no reason other than "they don't like it anymore". Just because it doesn't involve cash, it doesn't make the request any more reasonable.

If the OP chooses to say no, that's her choice. It doesn't make her difficult or HC. It means she's weighed the options and decided against it. Some people can't take no for an answer. The one that can't take no for an answer is HC, not the person saying no.

[dad2bandm]

...
If the OP chooses to say no, that's her choice. It doesn't make her difficult or HC. It means she's weighed the options and decided against it. Some people can't take no for an answer. The one that can't take no for an answer is HC, not the person saying no.

My observation, is that the only person throwing around the term HC (high conflict) in this thread is you. I've lost count of how many times.

[arabian]

Her ex has money to be able to afford good legal advice.

The ex has retained experienced legal counsel before, during and now - only a few months after the agreement was executed.

The ex is a doctor with high earnings and can easily afford to take her to court over and over again. He probably could care less if he wins or loses, its all about making her pay for divorcing him. I know this sort of individual too well. Unless he is deterred he could drag her back to court on a whim. Sure the judges may not like it but she still has to defend herself each and every time.

If he wants her to drive the kids more, then let him buy/lease her a new car.

I hope if this ends up in court that she puts this request forward. Maybe he'll then think twice about frivolous litigation.

[dad2bandm]

I'm not sure how that is relevant at all, to this issue?

I don't understand how a request for the ex to buy a new car for other parent post divorce comes into play?

Seperation agreement should have accounted for split of vehicle/assets already in some fashion.

And my understanding of original poster's situation is that ex is/was a resident Dr. Student, making approximately about 70,000 a year. At least that was case just short while ago. With legal debt now. And presumably education debt. You word this like he's rich? Original poster had thread stating her legal debt. I would guess it's less than someone who does not qualify for legal aid which would be the ex.

Original poster is receiving child and spousal support apparently?

I'm not sure how one would present a "buy me a new car" case to a judge in this scenario?

[arabian]

I see your point, however, if the ex wants to change the agreement then she can also change the agreement. The original agreement was made with the understanding that she would drive the kids once monthly (or thereabouts)with the old car. He had the better vehicle and agreed to do the majority of the driving. So it made sense to the couple at the time they endorsed their SA.

I believe her request for a car would be more than reasonable.

Are not resident doctors considered good credit risks by banks?

[arabian]

Of course SadandTired has never mentioned wanting a car. That is just my spin on how I'd approach the situation. They have kids to consider (and she is probably alot nicer than I am).