Shared Custody - Child's Choice

Take it down a notch, please, people. This isn't grade four recess. Yelling "go away!" is the sort of thing that scares off newbies.

I think the positions are clear - 3W thinks he may have a good legal case for penalizing his ex for parental alienation by means of CS, other posters think he doesn't and have informed him of such. Nobody is giving ground. Let's all take a few deep cleansing yoga breaths and go on with our day.
 
stripes said:
Take it down a notch, please, people. This isn't grade four recess. Yelling "go away!" is the sort of thing that scares off newbies.

I think the positions are clear - 3W thinks he may have a good legal case for penalizing his ex for parental alienation by means of CS, other posters think he doesn't and have informed him of such. Nobody is giving ground. Let's all take a few deep cleansing yoga breaths and go on with our day.
Click to expand...

"Go away"...sorry I meant go to yoga! Or was that...go smoke some pot and use the kettle to make tea?!?:D
 
So I've read about for posts in this thread and it's about enough to indicate that WWW is only interested in hearing from people who agree with him.

Unfortunately, given the majority of family law itself doesn't agree with you, having other posters blow smoke up your ass isn't going to help you, and can actually end up being detrimental to your case when you go in believing it is so because a bunch of intertube strangers who have zero vested interest in your situation said it was so.

You would be wise to learn to deal with the arguments put out against your position here, as they are what you will face in court as well. If you can't handle it here, or at the very least offer an intelligent counter, "go away" will not serve you well in a court room either.

Readers Digest version: improve your argument rather than stomp your foot and insist you're right.
 
blinkandimgone said:
So I've read about for posts in this thread and it's about enough to indicate that WWW is only interested in hearing from people who agree with him.

Unfortunately, given the majority of family law itself doesn't agree with you, having other posters blow smoke up your ass isn't going to help you, and can actually end up being detrimental to your case when you go in believing it is so because a bunch of intertube strangers who have zero vested interest in your situation said it was so.

You would be wise to learn to deal with the arguments put out against your position here, as they are what you will face in court as well. If you can't handle it here, or at the very least offer an intelligent counter, "go away" will not serve you well in a court room either.

Readers Digest version: improve your argument rather than stomp your foot and insist you're right.
Click to expand...

You mistaken my resistance to agree with everything everyone says here as a blatant disregard for what they are saying. Not true at all. I am here looking for information, like many new people.

I believe you also discount the role you play for strong willed people who decide to represent themselves in the battle they are in. Most of them have no other real source to "practice" their "argument" before they have to actually present it in court. I suspect Court is not a system for holding hands and running through a field of daisies together. It seems adversarial by its very nature, where people argue with each other, argue with the judge, argue with the law and argue with their own thoughts. Where can you practice this kind of nasty environment in the real world with people who don't just hold your hand and say "I understand!"?

All you folks should stop taking it so personal and should start recognizing that you are doing a very good service for humanity and sometimes it is a thankless job. Well, if you are still tuning in...I thank you! I am very appreciative of everyone who actually took the time to put together a really logical rebuttals to what I've been saying. That is practice for the real world. Saying that I "can't handle it here" is ignoring the fact that I have not gone away to hide in the corner somewhere when I didn't like what I heard.
 
Janus said:
Links to the cases Wilson has cited:

Melo v Melo

CanLII - 1999 CanLII 19633 (ON CJ)

Bates vs Bates

CanLII - 2000 CanLII 14734 (ON CA)

I'm not 100% sure about the second, but I think that is the one. I haven't read the cases yet, I will later :)
Click to expand...

Those seem pretty dated. Are they cited in successful cases afterwards? The poster should probably focus on finding more recent cases that support his arguments, instead of assuming things haven't changed in fifteen years.
 
Rioe said:
Those seem pretty dated. Are they cited in successful cases afterwards? The poster should probably focus on finding more recent cases that support his arguments, instead of assuming things haven't changed in fifteen years.
Click to expand...

I am not necessarily looking for something exactly like my situation...although that would be nice. What I did find in Bates & Bates is something that will not change over time through precedence and that is that the Court has the legislative authority to recognize other forms of "support of the child" that is not per se a one-to-one, dollar-for-dollar comparison with what the CS tables would say.

What I think that says to me is if one side is putting forth an offer that supports the child in ways that adds as much value in the "best interest of the child", the court is not bound by turning that into a dollar amount to make a comparison with the tables. It's basically a "judgement call" on the part of the judge.
 
WilsonWilsonWilson said:
I am not necessarily looking for something exactly like my situation...although that would be nice. What I did find in Bates & Bates is something that will not change over time through precedence and that is that the Court has the legislative authority to recognize other forms of "support of the child" that is not per se a one-to-one, dollar-for-dollar comparison with what the CS tables would say.



What I think that says to me is if one side is putting forth an offer that supports the child in ways that adds as much value in the "best interest of the child", the court is not bound by turning that into a dollar amount to make a comparison with the tables. It's basically a "judgement call" on the part of the judge.
Click to expand...


Theres a caution on this...if you're arguing that you wont pay the increased amount of cs because you're putting it in an RESP. Technically an RESP you open on your own is used for your portion of post secondary costs. If you're arguing that the extra cs payable now is going into the RESP then you will need to agree that that additional money will be paid to the kids during post secondary OVER AND ABOVE your proportionate share of the cost. Otherwise you are saying you are not paying cs and using the RESP money for your own benefit.

For example, if your full table support monthly totals $3000 per year for three kids and you put that into an RESP, you have to agree that you will pay that $1000 per kid towards their living expenses the year they are in school IN ADDITION to your 50/50 cs and proportionate share of school expenses when they go.
 
rockscan said:
Theres a caution on this...if you're arguing that you wont pay the increased amount of cs because you're putting it in an RESP. Technically an RESP you open on your own is used for your portion of post secondary costs. If you're arguing that the extra cs payable now is going into the RESP then you will need to agree that that additional money will be paid to the kids during post secondary OVER AND ABOVE your proportionate share of the cost. Otherwise you are saying you are not paying cs and using the RESP money for your own benefit.

For example, if your full table support monthly totals $3000 per year for three kids and you put that into an RESP, you have to agree that you will pay that $1000 per kid towards their living expenses the year they are in school IN ADDITION to your 50/50 cs and proportionate share of school expenses when they go.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand that much from reading about RESPs. At this point I am the only one putting in money to RESP, even though their mother could easily do some as well but does not. I think that will be a point of negotiation for sure but not sure how it will pan out. We are also offering some very reasonable things "in support of the children" that we hope will be recognized as well.

At least the Bates & Bates case tells me that the Court is well within its authority to recognize everything that has been done up to this point (before shared custodial custody ended) and see that as "supporting the child" and none of that has changed and can still be used.

This Court battle is not over money...it is over how that "money" or whatever value it has can be used in the best interest of the children.
 
Shared Custody - Child's Choice

WilsonWilsonWilson said:
Yes I understand that much from reading about RESPs. At this point I am the only one putting in money to RESP, even though their mother could easily do some as well but does not. I think that will be a point of negotiation for sure but not sure how it will pan out. We are also offering some very reasonable things "in support of the children" that we hope will be recognized as well.



At least the Bates & Bates case tells me that the Court is well within its authority to recognize everything that has been done up to this point (before shared custodial custody ended) and see that as "supporting the child" and none of that has changed and can still be used.



This Court battle is not over money...it is over how that "money" or whatever value it has can be used in the best interest of the children.
Click to expand...


Then you best find recent cases not at the appeal level where a judge allowed a different form of cs similar to what youre looking for. Judges at the non-appeal level dont waiver from the rules/guidelines/laws. These cases are old and may have been over turned or disregarded as cases moved through the courts in the last 17 years. It would be awful to get schooled by a judge in court with the info that these cases have been thrown aside.

Also, your ex may be investing in an RESP. She doesnt have to share that info with you. Anything she invests is for her portion even if shes been using cs for it. Your RESP investment is yours to use. If youre putting cs money into it when its supposed to go to the kids, you cant take that portion for your use. Its technically your kids money because its in lieu of full support.
 
Last edited:
Rockscan is right, contributions to an RESP do not count as CS. CS is meant for the ongoing maintenance of the child (the tables are calculated based on the amount a person at a given income level in a given province would spend on each of his/her children per month). If you want a business analogy, CS is for operating costs, not capital investments. Money in an RESP doesn't do anything for operating costs.

When you put money into an RESP, technically you're just moving it from one of your bank accounts to another one. You're not spending it on the child at the present. The expectation is that in the future you will use it to pay your share of the child's post-secondary educational costs, but it doesn't do anything to reduce your CS obligations to the other parent right now, in the present.

So I'd be careful trying to argue that putting money into an RESP is equivalent to paying CS. It's an apples-and-oranges comparison.
 
Howdy

A lot of people asked me to report back on what happened with my Court matter so here it is.

We met for a Case Conference on Tuesday. I had been to one before during my separation a few years ago and it was with a judge in a court room...pretty intimidating! Not so this time. She was not a judge. She was not a mediator. She was a lawyer from the OCL. We met in a small room at the court house. The first thing she said to us was that we were lucky because she was from the OCL. I know now that she was directing that at me. She also said that when she opened our file she said to herself..."not another one of these!".

The meeting went on for almost two hours!! For the first half hour I sat there and did not have to say one word...I did not even look away from her. I honestly thought an angel had come into my life! The first half hour she spent lecturing my ex wife. Every time my ex tried to say something to excuse her behaviour it was shot down. It went on and on! Let's just get this cleared up here for the few people that seemed to have the same mythical belief....THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE "WISHES OF THE CHILDREN"!!!! It is the wishes of the parents!

She said it does not matter if they are 12, or 17 or even 19...as long as they are living under the parents roof, it is the parent's wishes that count. I could not believe my ears. This is what I have been saying all along with my ex and all the times she has acted in ways likes she owns the children and gets between me and the children at almost every opportunity. My ex tried to bring up my cultural background being different than hers, etc., etc., but she was shot down on all of it. The lawyer said she did not see any evidence of anything that concerned her with the way I raised my kids different than their mother. All the work I did with getting reference letters and explaining my situation with every detail I could imagine finally paid off! She kept telling my ex that kids tell their parents what they think they want to hear and what will either buy them the most peace or the most reward! She knew very well who in the room just did not get it. Personally I do believe deep down inside my ex does get it, but she has such a hateful heart that it clouds her judgement. This woman had no tolerance for even a hint of parental alienation. Some folks here have tried to make a distinction between their definition or experience of AP as compared to mine or others. Try pulling that on this lawyer and you will get an education.

She kept repeating to my ex over and over again how to address the children..."your father and I think this"..."your father and I agree to this"..."your father and I want you to do this"!!!! "You have to be a united front on the children because anything else is just empowering them with responsibility their minds are not developed yet to handle." She was really surprised from our history how this had gotten so bad, where I have not seen two of my kids since July and they live 5 minutes away! She said she usually sees files 2 and 3 times as thick by the time it gets to this.

My ex was ordered to put together a schedule to get the kids back into my life and possibly living with me again. She suggested against an every other week schedule because studies have shown that does not work well with teenagers. At that time in their life they have a lot more possessions, friends in different neighbourhoods, etc. What works best is like a Monday Tuesday at one house, Wednesday Thursday at the other, etc. with weekends alternating back and forth. She said that is what she wanted us to work towards.

When it came down to arguing about the CS money, there was nothing to argue about. My problem with it all along was that increasing it under these conditions I was in with my kids was tantamount to rewarding their mother for her bad behaviour. I said to the lawyer that if this extra money she was asking for bought me her two hands on the backs of my children pushing them back into my life, that was a bargain. We spent about 10 minutes discussing CS. Again my ex was lectured about that. Before I would constantly get emails from her saying she spent this and that for the kids. She was told none of those this were extraordinary expenses and were stuff that should be covered by CS. She was also told that when she is getting full table amount she is responsible for every expense of the children from clothes, activities, etc....everything that is not covered under EE. She seemed a little shocked to hear that. I was a bit too. But that does not mean I cannot buy things for the kids if I choose to.

We are reconvening on February 25th again with the same lawyer to do a follow up. My ex has her marching orders and we have a lot of work to do with the kids now. Two of them are basically estranged from me and a lot of it was caused by me I know in my attempt over the last 6 months to wrestle back some parental authority over them. I sat through the entire 2 hr meeting without cracking open my briefcase once until the end to take out my book "Divorce Poison" and talk about it a bit. All that was in my briefcase was a bunch of nasty stuff anyway.

If any of you are in a similar situation with an ex around child access and alienation and are in the Peel County like me, you need to get this women lawyer from the OCL on your side. She has been at this since 1987 she said and seen it all. She has no tolerance at all for this ridiculous myth out there that parents and kids use now..."when I'm 12 I can decide where I want to live"!!! I'm not going to give the lawyer's name here because I searched the forum and no one else has quoted her name. If someone wants to get in touch with her, private message me and I'll give you her name. She is one of the easiest people to talk to I have ever encountered at that hell hole that is the court house of misery!
 
Thank you for the follow-up information. It sounds as though you and your ex have a challenge ahead of you and I know many on here look forward to hearing about how you approach everything.
 
Great news for you and your kids. Your ex is on notice and got a good taste of what would happen if she proceeded with her motion.

I'm also in Peel region and our case management judge spent 20 years as an OCL lawyer prior to becoming a judge. I believe that made a HUGE difference in how our case was handled with him cutting through the crap my ex put forward in court.

My conferences were similar to yours where my ex got scolded and told what needed to happen. When she chose not to comply or told more lies, it definitely hurt her position and advanced mine right away.

Good luck on reconnecting with your kids and getting a new parenting schedule on track.
 
YoungDad23 said:
Great news for you and your kids. Your ex is on notice and got a good taste of what would happen if she proceeded with her motion.

I'm also in Peel region and our case management judge spent 20 years as an OCL lawyer prior to becoming a judge. I believe that made a HUGE difference in how our case was handled with him cutting through the crap my ex put forward in court.

My conferences were similar to yours where my ex got scolded and told what needed to happen. When she chose not to comply or told more lies, it definitely hurt her position and advanced mine right away.

Good luck on reconnecting with your kids and getting a new parenting schedule on track.
Click to expand...

There is fairness and justice if you have the stomach to fight. Don't give up on the fight just because you cannot afford a lawyer or feel intimidated by the process. There is so much help at the court house that you can get for free that will guide you in the right direction.
 
I wouldn't go so far as to say teens have no input. OCL after all does stand for Office of the Children's Lawyer and when involved, certainly are supposed to represent the best interests of the children. Bearing in mind that the best interests may or may not be what the children desire, but older children's wishes are at least listened to I believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top