Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 03-05-2018, 10:29 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,779
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkingMom2007 View Post
The case Tayken has cited is very popular but not the only one. A more recent one, Browne v. Cerasa, 2017 ONSC 4684 (CanLII), the mother was allowed to move with her son to New York. Your circumstances are likely to be different from that of this case, but only a lawyer is best at advising you.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...7onsc4684.html
1. I have thousands of posts covering the topic and advised the OP to read them. It covers in much more depth the issues surrounding mobility. (1000++ of postings and case law can be found on this site from me to support my position.)

2. The case law provided deals with an extreme case of abusive behavior by the left behind parent. The abuse that the left behind parent and his family created was monumental. It is a prime example of what not to do when it comes to mobility and parenting after separation.

Good Luck!
Tayken
  #12  
Old 03-05-2018, 10:44 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,779
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ensorcelled View Post
I hope you decide to go for it. Your kids will learn so much by seeing you challenge yourself and be a boss mom (while keeping their relationship with their dad a priority too).
Hopefully, you have a partner who has a "lucrative employment position with their long time employer, Scotiabank/Scotia Mocatta." to pay for the legal bill too.

I would really weigh the options. To bring a mobility matter requires hundreds of thousands of dollars and significant evidence. It isn't a walk in the park. Nor were these "examples" given, with no analysis by the contributors, great examples of mobility issues.

I would recommend you retain a lawyer in the Harold Niman caliber to review any mobility matter.

Mind you if the other parent is as stupid as the one in this case law... Do proceed right to court because they are an idiot.

For example:

Quote:
[17] On April 13, 2012, John commenced a civil claim against Maria for over $2,000,000 in damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, battery and sexual assault.
Ugh... Rachet up the conflict and scream to the world that you can't parent a child by doing this...

Quote:
[31] On March 7, 2016, the parties attended a Case Conference at which time they entered into temporary, without prejudice, Minutes of Settlement. Maria understood that the Minutes of Settlement were a prelude to her moving to New York with John’s consent; John denied this.
Then agree to permit a move and back out of it...

Quote:
[122] Another prime example of the damaging interaction between the parties involved John’s trip to New York in June 2016. John and Maria entered into Minutes of Settlement on March 7, 2016 at a conference wherein John would spend from June 3, 2016 to June 7, 2016 with Vincenzo in New York; the Minutes of Settlement were not clear on the purpose of John’s trip. Maria understood that the purpose of this trip was for John to familiarize himself with the DUMBO area where Maria hoped to live with Vincenzo and for John to meet Vincenzo’s service providers such as his therapist and dentist. Paragraph 10 of the Minutes of Settlement stated that John “would participate in at least one counselling session when he is in New York between June 3 and June 7 if possible.” John stated that the purpose of the trip was simply for him to spend some holiday time with Vincenzo.
The idiot consented to the move and then pulled the consent.

Hard to compete with this too:

Quote:
[181] Mr. Browne expected that his income including bonus would increase significantly from year to year. His base salary had increased to $230,000 USD and a substantial part of his remuneration was his additional bonus. When he gave his evidence, his year to date income was $400,000 USD, and he expected to earn $680,000 USD in 2016.
Just saying... Why I don't both reporting on cases like these. They are not the "norm".

Good Luck!
Tayken
  #13  
Old 03-05-2018, 11:45 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,779
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Inspired by this thread I have done a review of the "cost" of a mobility trial with supporting evidence from CanLII which can be found here: http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/s...102#post227102
  #14  
Old 03-05-2018, 09:37 PM
arabian's Avatar
arabian arabian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 10,106
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

My opinion is simply that you have obligation to your children. When the children grow up and are no longer your responsibility then look to move out-of-country, get a job as a singer on a cruise ship or whatever. You have an obligation to ensure that your children have their father in their life do you not?

Job opportunities come and go. Relationships with parents are precious.
  #15  
Old 03-06-2018, 06:46 PM
WorkingMom2007 WorkingMom2007 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 61
WorkingMom2007 has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Unfortunately, it is a case from 2006 and the moving parent is a medical doctor.



It further relies upon a dated concept of the "primary caregiver" that you won't see much mention of these days in mobility matters. Why? The judges who hear these motions now are generally over-educated on modern custody and access decisions.

In 2018 it isn't great case law to rely upon.
Well, here is one from February 22, 2018, where Habitual Residence is defined as:

" “Habitually resident” is defined in s.22(2)(a)-(c) pf the CLRA as follows:

Habitual residence

22 (2) A child is habitually resident in the place where he or she resided,

(a) with both parents;

(b) where the parents are living separate and apart, with one parent under a separation agreement or with the consent, implied consent or acquiescence of the other or under a court order; or

(c) with a person other than a parent on a permanent basis for a significant period of time, whichever last occurred. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 22 (2); 2016, c. 23, s. 6."

"https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc1206/2018onsc1206.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAeaGFiaXR1YW wgcmVzaWRlbmNlLCBmYW1pbHkgbGF3AAAAAAE&resultIndex=5

Just because you have posted thousands of posts on the topic, doesn't give you the right to tell a woman she should seek to better herself.
  #16  
Old 03-07-2018, 09:45 AM
HammerDad HammerDad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,738
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkingMom2007 View Post
Well, here is one from February 22, 2018, where Habitual Residence is defined as:

" “Habitually resident” is defined in s.22(2)(a)-(c) pf the CLRA as follows:

Habitual residence

22 (2) A child is habitually resident in the place where he or she resided,

(a) with both parents;

(b) where the parents are living separate and apart, with one parent under a separation agreement or with the consent, implied consent or acquiescence of the other or under a court order; or

(c) with a person other than a parent on a permanent basis for a significant period of time, whichever last occurred. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 22 (2); 2016, c. 23, s. 6."

"https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc1206/2018onsc1206.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAeaGFiaXR1YW wgcmVzaWRlbmNlLCBmYW1pbHkgbGF3AAAAAAE&resultIndex=5

Just because you have posted thousands of posts on the topic, doesn't give you the right to tell a woman she should seek to better herself.
Ugg, somehow this got dragged into be a feminism issue.... Had the OP been male, the script would have been the same. That you can move all you want. You can't move with the kids without a) the ex's permission or b) a court order. Sex has nothing to do with the test.

It is about whether or not the move is in the kids best interests. The OP will have to give valid reason of why this is the kids best interests, not a sexist diatribe.
  #17  
Old 03-07-2018, 10:03 AM
rockscan rockscan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,230
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerDad View Post
Ugg, somehow this got dragged into be a feminism issue.... Had the OP been male, the script would have been the same. That you can move all you want. You can't move with the kids without a) the ex's permission or b) a court order. Sex has nothing to do with the test.

It is about whether or not the move is in the kids best interests. The OP will have to give valid reason of why this is the kids best interests, not a sexist diatribe.


Amen brother

Lets hope the follow up isnt “children belong with their mother”.

Always remember that you can find any number of cases that support your position just as there are cases that go against your position. If you ex can show up and demonstrate effectively why you taking the kids is a bad idea, he will win. Tread carefully. A new job making more money is useless if you are paying interest on legal fees owed to get there.
  #18  
Old 03-11-2018, 01:47 PM
ensorcelled ensorcelled is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 142
ensorcelled has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
Amen brother

Lets hope the follow up isnt “children belong with their mother”.

Always remember that you can find any number of cases that support your position just as there are cases that go against your position. If you ex can show up and demonstrate effectively why you taking the kids is a bad idea, he will win. Tread carefully. A new job making more money is useless if you are paying interest on legal fees owed to get there.
I don't think it's that straightforward. Many women follow their spouses for their better jobs or to increase their earnings and if the relationship doesn't work out, and now she has to move out of town to get those same opportunities, she should pursue them. You can't extoll the virtues of shared parenting by also recognising that having the kids half the time may not automatically give you the job you need to move up the corporate ladder or better yourself and your long-term employment prospects.
  #19  
Old 03-11-2018, 01:51 PM
ensorcelled ensorcelled is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 142
ensorcelled has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerDad View Post
Ugg, somehow this got dragged into be a feminism issue.... Had the OP been male, the script would have been the same. That you can move all you want. You can't move with the kids without a) the ex's permission or b) a court order. Sex has nothing to do with the test.

It is about whether or not the move is in the kids best interests. The OP will have to give valid reason of why this is the kids best interests, not a sexist diatribe.
But it's not a secret women generally fare off worse financially when they are single mothers AND when they are in shared parenting situations. This is the norm and even the data out of Scandinavian countries (where they are pushing quotas, equal pay legislation and shared parenting for a long time now) show that women are still making less than men. If she has to better her life by moving I'm going to guess she's exhausted all options in her current city and she should not be held back because the consequences of NOT taking those opportunities are much graver for women than men.

You can't claim equality in one area (parenting) and then deny the consequences of it. Men are STILL benefitting from 'equality' more than women are and probably ever will.
  #20  
Old 03-14-2018, 12:33 PM
MommaMouse MommaMouse is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 178
MommaMouse is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerDad View Post
Ugg, somehow this got dragged into be a feminism issue.... Had the OP been male, the script would have been the same. That you can move all you want. You can't move with the kids without a) the ex's permission or b) a court order. Sex has nothing to do with the test.

It is about whether or not the move is in the kids best interests. The OP will have to give valid reason of why this is the kids best interests, not a sexist diatribe.
I agree ....I really don't want to bring this into a feminist debate. I am a mother, but that doesn't change the requirements or for that matter my opportunities within my company, in fact I hate the fact that it actually may in some ways increase the odds that I will be selected for positions I apply for (I am in a very male dominated field).

What I don't want to happen is to go apply for a job blindly not knowing what it means for the children. I am the custodial parent and with that comes more responsibility for ensuring that what I do is best for all of us and I didn't want to make these decisions lightly.

Some of what was said might sound harsh but reality is harsh and I really appreciate all the viewpoints shared. At times I have to choose between my career and my kids... everyone does regardless of sex. We do it everyday without thinking.

In the end it came down to is this job/promotion worth the fight. Reading through ALL the threads and case law I believe I would have a better chance than most of winning if he were to fight me. However, the time, cost, effort and disruption out weighed any potential benefit.....I'm not a doctor going from making $230k to 500k+. This isn't to say I'll never apply to other advancement opportunities, just not this position this far away.
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ex-wife fled the country with my daughter Hoover Divorce & Family Law 16 10-11-2010 08:09 PM
Stopping CP from moving? ForwardFromHere Divorce & Family Law 3 05-14-2010 12:58 PM
Moving Out of the Country nomoredrama Parenting Issues 13 08-12-2009 06:46 AM
Moving to other Country sco44 Financial Issues 2 01-10-2007 10:41 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:59 AM.