Defacto custody and relocation

[HammerDad]

They chose to give up on them by entrusting them voluntarily into my full care. I guess the better way to word it is that they gave up the responsibility of joint parenting.

I don't agree with this statement.

Just because you are the primary parent, and probably could win sole custody if you did fight for it in court, does not remove their natural right of the other parent to joint custody.

In other words, until a court orders that you have sole custody, you don't. The actions of your ex's may sway the courts to grant you sole, but do not amount to an automatic release of rights.

You ex's have as much entitlement to the kids as you do, notwithstanding you doing the majority of the parenting. The children are entitled to a relationship with both parents, and it is commonly held that it is the responsibility of the custodial parent to promote that relationship, as that is what is in the children's best interests.

 

[dadtotheend]

1. Why did you feel compelled to patronize Blink?

What are you talking about? I'm done with you.

 

[Zhoozhelitsa]

What are you talking about? I'm done with you.

Well, there are these things called dictionaries...

 

[Zhoozhelitsa]

Just because you are the primary parent, and probably could win sole custody if you did fight for it in court, does not remove their natural right of the other parent to joint custody.

Let me think this through. My problem isn't with the right to joint custody. My problem is that while the right to joint custody is universally emphasized, the notion of joint responsibility of raising a child isn't. So it becomes lopsided somewhat. In other words, access parents have the right to joint parenting but they have an option to either exercise this right or withdraw; while for a custodial parent it isn't an option. Is this a correct understanding?

Also, just wanted to ask you as someone who has experience with the system of family justice in this country, because I would like an opinion. The responsibilities of joint parenting are not enforced as strictly as the rights to joint parenting. Would you agree or disagree?

 

[dinkyface]

So it becomes lopsided somewhat. In other words, access parents have the right to joint parenting but they have an option to either exercise this right or withdraw; while for a custodial parent it isn't an option. Is this a correct understanding?

No.
Either parent can withdraw from their parental role.
Both parents must provide financial support.

 

[HammerDad]

Let me think this through. My problem isn't with the right to joint custody. My problem is that while the right to joint custody is universally emphasized, the notion of joint responsibility of raising a child isn't. So it becomes lopsided somewhat. In other words, access parents have the right to joint parenting but they have an option to either exercise this right or withdraw; while for a custodial parent it isn't an option. Is this a correct understanding?

That would be a close understanding. Until a court makes an order relating to custody, each parent natural parent is equally entitled to custody and the child is entitled to equal relationship with both parents.

I believe you are focusing too much on the parenting side of the equation, and believe because you do more parenting you should have more rights. Effort doesn't = rights. Just because you may do more parenting doesn't make your ex's are any less important to your child than you. They each provide a role in your child's life and the child is entitled to benefit from such role.

Yes, there are NCP's who default on their role. But there are also CP's that default in their role as well.

My ex complains that she does more parenting then I do and that she feels I have too many rights. The reality is I know my rights, it isn't that I have any special entitlement. She says she is the primary parent and should be able to dictate x, y and z. I reply with if she is having such issues, I would more than happily change roles with her.

Edit - Dinky does make a good point that either parent can withdraw. My point is that both parents have rights until a court says they don't or they choose not to use them (which only hurts the children).

 

[Zhoozhelitsa]

That would be a close understanding. Until a court makes an order relating to custody, each parent natural parent is equally entitled to custody and the child is entitled to equal relationship with both parents.

I believe you are focusing too much on the parenting side of the equation, and believe because you do more parenting you should have more rights. Effort doesn't = rights. Just because you may do more parenting doesn't make your ex's are any less important to your child than you. They each provide a role in your child's life and the child is entitled to benefit from such role.

Yes, there are NCP's who default on their role. But there are also CP's that default in their role as well.

My ex complains that she does more parenting then I do and that she feels I have too many rights. The reality is I know my rights, it isn't that I have any special entitlement. She says she is the primary parent and should be able to dictate x, y and z. I reply with if she is having such issues, I would more than happily change roles with her.

Edit - Dinky does make a good point that either parent can withdraw. My point is that both parents have rights until a court says they don't or they choose not to use them (which only hurts the children).

I guess it would be true to say that I focus a lot on the parenting side, but this is because that's what I do therefore personal biases are coming into play here. But let's try and put them aside and think more systemically.

It appears that the system works if both parents are rational and both have an interest in parenting the child. That's ideal. But let's say, here is a situation where an NCP is not interested in parenting but is interested in rights. How does the system protect the CP in this case, if at all? Let's say a mother is an NCP who tries to avoid paying CS (let's say, hides her income or is underemployed) and doesn't seem to care about the child's needs. She does insist on access. The father (CP) then has the responsibility to promote the relationship and ensure access b/c it's in the childs' best interest, so this is what he does b/c he's a conscientious father.

If the mother insists on her rights of access, she has them automatically (unless she's an axe murderer). If the mother decides to hide her income, the dad will have to go a long way in order to prove anything and get what belongs to the child. So it appears that rights are easy to enforce while responsibilities aren't so easy. Would you agree? Would you have a speculation as to why it's the way it is?


Again, this is a 'systemic' talk. This doesn't pertain to my situation.

 

[HammerDad]

It is the way it is because professional after professional has agreed that it is in the children's best interests to have a relationship with both parents.

As for the hypothetical scenario, there are remedies that the CP can use to get proper support. FRO, contempt, imputing income etc. Same goes with CP's that deny access. NCP's can take them to court for contempt and have the court order make up time.

Access and c/s are not linked for this purpose. Because if you link them, and one parent (be it CP or NCP) starts to renege on their obligation, the other parent can snowball the situation by refusing to live up to their obligations. So, CP denies access. As a result, the NCP refuses to pay cs. That pisses of the CP so they continue to deny access etc etc.......and then you are in a vicous cycle where the child loses.

Taking a child centric position and the rights of the child to a relationship with both parents is the fairest scenario. The child is innocent of the parents actions, and should not be deprived of a relationship with either parent, notwithstanding roles, or who does more work for the child, or who is right or wrong.

 

[Zhoozhelitsa]

No.
Either parent can withdraw from their parental role.
Both parents must provide financial support.

True. But logistically, if one parent decides to withdraw assuming that the other one will take on the full responsibility without consulting that parent first to ensure the remaining parent is capable, does this seem like an unfair deal to the remaining parent?

Say, a mother decides to leave the family and just takes off. The father is now the primary caregiver b/c he doesn't have a choice other than giving the kids up for adoption. It may take months to for him to start receiving CS. Again, the right to withdraw from parenting for the mom in this case is instant, and enforcing her responsibility (CS) could be a slow and painful process.

 

[iceberg]

You cant wave off CS cuz it is a must. If the fathers are deadbeats then I side with you but I doubt they are cuz they don't allow them to move. I went thru it and I know the importance of having a good dad. Money doesn't buy true happiness. You know your life but here is what I think, unless you are going for a doctor or a lawyer, finding a job in your area for $15 hourly is just over $2000 a month plus you mentioned $800 as CS from dads and nearly $800 CCTB-UTB comes to $3600 after taxes.

I don't make that much

 

[HammerDad]

True. But logistically, if one parent decides to withdraw assuming that the other one will take on the full responsibility without consulting that parent first to ensure the remaining parent is capable, does this seem like an unfair deal to the remaining parent?

Say, a mother decides to leave the family and just takes off. The father is now the primary caregiver b/c he doesn't have a choice other than giving the kids up for adoption. It may take months to for him to start receiving CS. Again, the right to withdraw from parenting for the mom in this case is instant, and enforcing her responsibility (CS) could be a slow and painful process.

You can't legislate intelligence or morality....or common sense or ethics.

If one parent chooses to be a douche, that it their choice. Yes, it affects the other parent and the child, but we aren't in a place in our society where we can prevent someone from being self-destructive in this manner.

Being stupid or ignorant isn't against the laws right now. They aren't endangering the child, or most likely themselves where the courts could step in more.

If one parent where to leave, well....that sucks. But you as a parent suck it up because that is what is best for the child. And when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade.

 

[LostFather]

I have to say...I am not in agreement with any of your reasons to uproot your children and take them away from dad....having said that...I admire you standing on point....even when enduring such foul and abusive language/abuse exerted from blink and dtte...this is quite normal behavior from these two especially if you do not agree with them...playing on words is something they're are quite ready to do&quote others on but are used often themselves in order to try and prove points...if called on such...they seem to step it up by using foul and abusive words...my humble opinion it gives them a sence of power and control.

Again I do not agree with your position I do admire your restraint. ...better than I could of done faced with the assault you went through lol.

 

[Zhoozhelitsa]

You cant wave off CS cuz it is a must. If the fathers are deadbeats then I side with you but I doubt they are cuz they don't allow them to move. I went thru it and I know the importance of having a good dad. Money doesn't buy true happiness. You know your life but here is what I think, unless you are going for a doctor or a lawyer, finding a job in your area for $15 hourly is just over $2000 a month plus you mentioned $800 as CS from dads and nearly $800 CCTB-UTB comes to $3600 after taxes.

I don't make that much

That's ok... I'm currently as poor as they come and it's quite alright.

No they aren't deadbeats, they care even though they wouldn't want the kids full time. I suppose they could have participated a little more, you know...make some decisions, show initiative, enforce rules for the kids etc. But on the other hand, I have a trade off of receiving cooperation and respect from them. After 2 days on this board I'm starting to feel grateful for what I have

The problem is that I am training for a 100+ salary right now. Not a doctor or a lawyer but something similar. Giving this up for a 15/h job seems a little unreasonable.

 

[Zhoozhelitsa]

You can't legislate intelligence or morality....or common sense or ethics.

If one parent chooses to be a douche, that it their choice. Yes, it affects the other parent and the child, but we aren't in a place in our society where we can prevent someone from being self-destructive in this manner.

Being stupid or ignorant isn't against the laws right now. They aren't endangering the child, or most likely themselves where the courts could step in more.

If one parent where to leave, well....that sucks. But you as a parent suck it up because that is what is best for the child. And when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade.

Well, ethical behavior can be somewhat accommodated by the Human Rights Code but that doesn't extend to cover our private lives, fortunately or not...

 

[Zhoozhelitsa]

I have to say...I am not in agreement with any of your reasons to uproot your children and take them away from dad....having said that...I admire you standing on point....even when enduring such foul and abusive language/abuse exerted from blink and dtte...this is quite normal behavior from these two especially if you do not agree with them...playing on words is something they're are quite ready to do&quote others on but are used often themselves in order to try and prove points...if called on such...they seem to step it up by using foul and abusive words...my humble opinion it gives them a sence of power and control.

Again I do not agree with your position I do admire your restraint. ...better than I could of done faced with the assault you went through lol.

Thank you Emotional detachment and maintaining boundaries are a part of my training. People can only hurt you if you let them, I think. Once you are detached from abuse, it becomes easy and even entertaining in a way to watch repeated failed attempts of the offending party, which only enrages them further. Or toy around with the abuser b/c once they have 'lost it', they seem tough and scary but in fact it them who are not in control.

Also, look at the story I've posted. It has plenty of room for freestyle interpretation, and once the story unravels in time, it brings on something known as the Forer effect. It means that the story itself is like an information field covered in little 'triggers', little hooks which will 'catch' you emotionally if you can relate to them or will go unnoticed if you never experienced anything of the sort. So after we have read the story, everyone got a slightly different picture based on his or her unique pattern of hurts. The little emotional pings we can relate to can be quite painful and many people use a defense mechanism called 'projection'. It's not necessarily conscious; I think it's good to be aware of them though. Projections are fun and they can give you information based on what it is that triggered a person.

So if someone gets repeatedly negatively triggered by a resilient, argumentative, 'bossy' female it can speak for that person's negative experience with a similar female in his life.

Or if someone gives a bitter, negative 'advice' to prepare for a long tough uphill legal battle, it can indicate that the person has experienced something similar for himself/herself and it was a traumatic experience.

Or if a person gets triggered and becomes angry when he or she feels like his/her points are ignored, rejected, or not otherwise properly validated, it could mean that the person gets silenced, ignored or invalidated in real life, and of course it's traumatic.

My goal was to get triggered by your (readers) responses so that I could explore my own projections related to this topic.

 

[LostFather]

Thank you Emotional detachment and maintaining boundaries are a part of my training. People can only hurt you if you let them, I think. Once you are detached from abuse, it becomes easy and even entertaining in a way to watch repeated failed attempts of the offending party, which only enrages them further. Or toy around with the abuser b/c once they have 'lost it', they seem tough and scary but in fact it them who are not in control.

Also, look at the story I've posted. It has plenty of room for freestyle interpretation, and once the story unravels in time, it brings on something known as the Forer effect. It means that the story itself is like an information field covered in little 'triggers', little hooks which will 'catch' you emotionally if you can relate to them or will go unnoticed if you never experienced anything of the sort. So after we have read the story, everyone got a slightly different picture based on his or her unique pattern of hurts. The little emotional pings we can relate to can be quite painful and many people use a defense mechanism called 'projection'. It's not necessarily conscious; I think it's good to be aware of them though. Projections are fun and they can give you information based on what it is that triggered a person.

So if someone gets repeatedly negatively triggered by a resilient, argumentative, 'bossy' female it can speak for that person's negative experience with a similar female in his life.

Or if someone gives a bitter, negative 'advice' to prepare for a long tough uphill legal battle, it can indicate that the person has experienced something similar for himself/herself and it was a traumatic experience.

My goal was to get triggered by your (readers) responses so that I could explore my own projections related to this topic.

I think there is a lot of emotions in here I include myself in that statement, all from unique and personal experiences. I myself got caught up in a play of words battle or.my my case the lack of using.one word..then being a victim of words being added to my comments...well two guesses who jumped all over that one lol...I was commenting on a article that was posted by a member that was written by a woman...with a phd....interesting enough she commented on bitter parents...and what one sex that was mainly the one whom was bitter...but instead of attacking the author of the the original post...they came after me....fair enough...but the adding of words and playing on those words was a tool of their attack....but when the vollies were sent back...then they did not like that....very interesting to say the least.

Its a shame really because both do have a lot to offer this fourm, unfortunately their credibility gets clouded by the abusive and foul language need to get tier points across...especially if your not in agreement with them....again this is all just my humble opinion based on my experience.

 

[blinkandimgone]

I didn't say YOU Blinkie, did I? This could have referred to the collective "you" of the thread, the majority. You assumed I pointed a finger at you personally. That wasn't my intention. Why you assumed it and why it made you upset - that I don't know. My assumption with this one was that this board was a place frequented by males who seem upset about certain things, I don't think it's incorrect.

You addressed me directly by quoting my post in your reply. It was a reasonable assumption. I am still not a man. I am happily penis-free. Still.

 

[dadtotheend]

I have to say...I am not in agreement with any of your reasons to uproot your children and take them away from dad....having said that...I admire you standing on point....even when enduring such foul and abusive language/abuse exerted from blink and dtte...this is quite normal behavior from these two especially if you do not agree with them...playing on words is something they're are quite ready to do&quote others on but are used often themselves in order to try and prove points...if called on such...they seem to step it up by using foul and abusive words...my humble opinion it gives them a sence of power and control.

Again I do not agree with your position I do admire your restraint. ...better than I could of done faced with the assault you went through lol.

You're so lame. You probably this song is about you...Don't you? Don't you?

 

[blinkandimgone]

I have to say...I am not in agreement with any of your reasons to uproot your children and take them away from dad....having said that...I admire you standing on point....even when enduring such foul and abusive language/abuse exerted from blink and dtte...this is quite normal behavior from these two especially if you do not agree with them...playing on words is something they're are quite ready to do&quote others on but are used often themselves in order to try and prove points...if called on such...they seem to step it up by using foul and abusive words...my humble opinion it gives them a sence of power and control.

Again I do not agree with your position I do admire your restraint. ...better than I could of done faced with the assault you went through lol.

LMAO! You can't seperate your bitterness towards your ex from any other female you encounter. Every woman is always out to screw the ex, in your opinion. I stand up for the rights of asshats like you to be involved in your childrens' lives because I believe it to be the right thing, not to be limited by your gender despite the fact that you project your negativity from your own situation into EVERY situation you encounter. It is impossible for you to see Mom/Dad as co-operative partners because you are incapable of managing it with your ex, you turn EVERY situation into a Mom vs Dad battle.

Feel free to quote ANY other post I've ever made on this forum where I've dropped an eff-bomb. Any post, any thread, anywhere. I can guarantee you can't.

I'll defend your rights as a parent LF, because I believe in the rights of children to have both of their parents in their lives equally. I will also address ignorance and stupidity for what it is, whether you're male or female. Stupid isn't gender specific, it's just stupid.

 

[dadtotheend]

Don't forget the courts. The courts too are out to screw every man on the planet.

What a yahoo you are LF.

I've contained myself lately in spite of the shots you've taken at me, but screw that anymore.

You project your own sad story onto every case out there. Fortunately for you it is easy to wrap yourself in the gender bias argument, but you fail to see or even acknowledge the fact that sometime fathers are the primary caregivers and therefore obtain custody. Any time that happens Mom must have a needle sticking out of her arm. There's not a chance that Dad did it on merit and the court accepted it.

For what feels like the hundreth time, you fail to see that you have a whacked out ex that explains some of the problem. Yeah, you may also have drawn a whacked out judge, but that doesn't mean every case is as sorry as yours.

Not only are you a LostFather. You're a lost cause.