Vacations/Appointments Question

LovingFather32

LovingFather32

New member
Good evening.

I wanted to ask a few separate questions here to stimulate some discussion regarding the proper way for separated parents to handle vacations/Dr. Appointments on the interim, when custody has not yet been decided.

Vacations:

It s quite obvious that ex is setting roots in QC. D4 says she rarely sleeps in Ottawa. Every time I drop her off ex is packing the car. D4 runs to her asking if they're going to mtl and ex says yes.

I have a mobility clause that deals with relocation. It clearly states that it's in place to maintain an effective status quo in Ottawa. Not another province. But it's only in effect for relocation.

My question is, since I'm not okay with status quo being built in QC .. and not knowing where D4 is half the time, I want my ex to be cognizant that I would like the details, the time of departure/return, and my consent to leave the province.

Is this a reasonable request .. given my situation?
Just some info I found: Section 7: Travel - Parenting Plan Tool


Dr's Appt's:

My ex has purposely not invited me to Dr./Dentist appointments, only notifying me afterwards. Following the abduction I didn't know their whereabouts and she unilaterally switched our family Dr., withholding all health/welfare info for many months, including the new Dr's/Dentist.

I would like to continue to be involved in D4's life when it comes to appointments, etc. I invite her to every appointment, every special event .. it's just not returned.

Do I have the right to request that I have notification of any appointments a week or two before and somehow be involved? I feel like it's a very sneaky way for her to achieve her goals. Abduct, hide, change Dr's, keep me out of the loop.

I attended every single appointment with D4 pre-separation. She just chose to not have me involved anymore. I disagree with her decision to keep me out of the loop.

Thanks you for your help,

LF32
 
Yes, both requests are reasonable. It's great if you can get it into an order so maybe she takes it more seriously. But....how enforceable are they? And who will enforce it?

Having your home declared primary residence would help with the first issue, so the child must not be relocated outside of her customary area, aside from short vacations. I was just reading the wording of this, let me see if I can find it for you. brb.
 
Here's some info that deals with standard clauses - relocation and mobility being in there (see pages 13 - 14 "Mobility Issues and Restrictions on Travel or Removal from Jurisdiction")

Standard-Clauses-for-Orders-EN.doc — Ontario Court Services

Specifically in regards to Vacations - section 5.8.

Is this something she does only in the summer, ie: like a family cottage? or does she do this for all her time with kidlet and will she really claim it is all vacation time?

If so...how does one sign up to get that vacation package, I want in.
 
Is this something she does only in the summer, ie: like a family cottage? or does she do this for all her time with kidlet and will she really claim it is all vacation time?

If so...how does one sign up to get that vacation package, I want in.[/QUOTE]
blinkandimgone said:
Is this something she does only in the summer, ie: like a family cottage? or does she do this for all her time with kidlet and will she really claim it is all vacation time?
Click to expand...
The latter for sure. This isn't just a summer thing.

blinkandimgone said:
Here's some info that deals with standard clauses - relocation and mobility being in there (see pages 13 - 14 "Mobility Issues and Restrictions on Travel or Removal from Jurisdiction")

Standard-Clauses-for-Orders-EN.doc — Ontario Court Services

Specifically in regards to Vacations - section 5.8.
Click to expand...
Great document Blink. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
You're entitled to have access to all of D4s medical professionals whether your ex cares or not. Was the former family doctor in Ontario asked to forward files and patient medical history to a new doctor. You would have a right to ask the former doctor to whom the file was transferred.

Second, can D4 be seen by medical professionals in Quebec as a regular non-emergency patient if she's supposed to be an Ontario resident? presumably she should have only an Ontario health card.
 
Yes. My original family Dr indicated that she hadn't heard from D4 or ex. She unilaterally switched Dr's.

Ex stated in her affidavit that she provided her new Dr. information to me shortly after visits began. But really, she provided it 8 months later, after repeated, polite requests.

So now she attends appointments and only tells me afterwards. All I would ask is that we both notify each other of future appointments, the nature of the appointments, etc.

can D4 be seen by medical professionals in Quebec as a regular non-emergency patient if she's supposed to be an Ontario resident? presumably she should have only an Ontario health card.
Click to expand...
Good question NFC.

It seems only if it is recommended by an Ontario Practitioner and it is approved by the ministry:

As seen below:

Out of Province Services - Ontario Health Insurance Plan - Ministry Programs - Public Information - MOHLTC

Non-emergency planned medical care required in Canada but outside Ontario. These services are requested or recommended by either an Ontario physician or a physician who will be providing the services in another province or territory. The ministry requires that certain insured services be approved prior to the medical service(s) being provided.
Click to expand...

So it's a bit cloudy, because it seems ex can get a referral from a QC Dr and the QC Dr can get the OOP funding approved (if all conditions are met). So It's a bit cloudy to me.
 
Re mobility, I think the requirement for both parents' consent is really only justifiable if international borders are involved (when the child is being taken out of the country). I doubt an inter-provincial requirement for consent would be enforceable (especially when the provinces involved are Ontario and QC, right next to each other). As long as Mom returns Kid to Dad at the appointed time, where she goes during her parenting time is her decision. Dad knows where Kid is (at Grandma's place) and can reach Mom in emergencies (cellphone), so there's no need for his consent to be sought every time.

If the concern is that Mom will take Kid and not return her, an inter-provincial mobility consent clause won't prevent that. It will just create a lot of unnecessary bickering between Mom and Dad, because Mom will view this (not unreasonably) as attempting to micromanage her movements. Establishing where Kid will attend school (school district) or where she will reside (within a set radius) will do more to ensure that Kid stays where she is supposed to stay than any clause which impinges on Mom's time.

As for medical notification, both parents are entitled to all of Kid's medical records, and you could put in a clause saying that each parent will notify the other when they make an appointment for Kid with any medical practitioner, and in the event of urgent medical treatment (when no appointment is made), will notify the other as soon as reasonably possible. But I doubt that would be enforceable.
 
Dad at the appointed time, where she goes during her parenting time is her decision.
Click to expand...
Agree .. to a certain extent. The motion judge indicated that he was initiating the mobility clause to ensure an effective status quo was being laid in this current city. D4 says she barely sleeps in this city and ex tells me she's going to QC all the time. She's packing luggage in the car the moment I arrive.

I get what you're saying .. I just hope some kind of foundation is being laid in this community, not QC's .. as per the motion judges intention.

Dad knows where Kid is (at Grandma's place) and can reach Mom in emergencies (cellphone)
Click to expand...
No, I dont know where she is. There are friends, family .. and her father who lives very deep in QC. Friend's of friend's have seen her in the clubs in mtl partying .. which is fine .. just curious where D4 is.
so there's no need for his consent to be sought every time.
Click to expand...
Seems to be a fairly standard clause in many family law cases. And the majority stipulate that consent is required when leaving the province, not just the country.

Thanks for the advice though Stripes. It probably would cause some unnecessary bickering. I'm just hoping that ex is following judges orders and not spending every second laying roots in mtl.
 
Last edited:
My agreement has a paragraph about needing to inform my ex if I plan to take the children out of the province. Not get consent before doing so, just inform in advance. It wasn't anything either of us asked to have put in there, so it is probably pretty standard.

Of course, the only time I ever took the kids out of province since signing it was only for a few hours and I completely forgot about the clause.
 
LovingFather32 said:
Agree .. to a certain extent. The motion judge indicated that he was initiating the mobility clause to ensure an effective status quo was being laid in this current city. D4 says she barely sleeps in this city and ex tells me she's going to QC all the time. She's packing luggage in the car the moment I arrive.

I get what you're saying .. I just hope some kind of foundation is being laid in this community, not QC's .. as per the motion judges intention.


No, I dont know where she is. There are friends, family .. and her father who lives very deep in QC. Friend's of friend's have seen her in the clubs in mtl partying .. which is fine .. just curious where D4 is.

Seems to be a fairly standard clause in many family law cases. And the majority stipulate that consent is required when leaving the province, not just the country.

Thanks for the advice though Stripes. It probably would cause some unnecessary bickering. I'm just hoping that ex is following judges orders and not spending every second laying roots in mtl.
Click to expand...

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but it really isn't any of your business where Mom is at any time, including the time when she's with Kid. The only thing that's your business is whether Kid is safe (and there's no reason to think she's not) and whether Mom is following existing orders concerning residence and custody (which an interprovincial parental consent clause will do nothing to address, if she's determined not to follow the order). Similarly, your whereabouts and your arrangements with friends and family are none of Mom's business either.

My ex took our kid on a week-long holiday last month - I knew vaguely where they were going (what part of what province) but he didn't tell me their itinerary and I didn't ask. All I need to know is that Kid can be reached in case of an emergency and that Kid will be returned to me per the schedule. Ex also goes out of town frequently during his parenting time and leaves Kid with relatives of his wife, whom I don't know. I don't love not knowing where my daughter is and I wish he wouldn't leave her with his mother-in-law rather than spending time with her, but I recognize that she is safe and her father is not going to put her into any jeopardy, even if his parenting practices are not the same as mine. For my part, I do provide detailed information about where we're going if I go out of town with her, but this is because I think it's a good practice, not because I think he has a right to know.
 
Why does the clause exist and why is it used so often?

Why does the clause exist and why is it used so often?

Addressing Stripes:
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but it really isn't any of your business where Mom is at any time, including the time when she's with Kid.
Click to expand...
Doesn't sound harsh. I've gotten used to being told I have no rights and things are none of my business .. since separation. She agrees with you .. I wasn't allowed to know where D4 was for 3 months.

But why does the clause exist? And why is it used so often? The law seems to differ in opinion ... that parents do have a right to know.

I don't love not knowing where my daughter is and I wish he wouldn't leave her with his mother-in-law rather than spending time with her, but I recognize that she is safe and her father is not going to put her into any jeopardy, even if his parenting practices are not the same as mine
Click to expand...
Our situations are different. Ex has orders to maintain an effective status quo in this city. We are trial-bound and she wants to go saying that she has now laid roots in QC and be granted to relocate after trial. I obviously don't care for that arrangement.

For out-of-country I'd like to be able to consent. For out-of-province .. just informing me like Rioe's would be fine.

I do believe the clause exists for a reason. Both parents have a right to know when their child exits the province.

As Blink mentioned .. I believe that in a case like mine (which is not your average case) .. that this is not an unreasonable request (In our opinions).

I will be more than happy to notify ex each and every time I leave the province. I will not say it's none of her business. Because I believe that it is.
 
Last edited:
I can see many problems to this situation. Is ex giving the impression that she lives in Ontario while secretly making the transition to Quebec? One wonders what sort of impact that would have legally... Someone correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there significant differences in family law between Quebec and Ontario? I'm not sure if a cross-province thing in say Manitoba/Saskatchewan would be the same thing. Once the mother establishes residence in Quebec would her logical next move not be to have the family law file transferred to the Quebec courts? How would that effect LF32's position with regards to his rights to have a significant, or at the very least, equal role in raising his daughter?
 
arabian said:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there significant differences in family law between Quebec and Ontario? I'm not sure if a cross-province thing in say Manitoba/Saskatchewan would be the same thing. Once the mother establishes residence in Quebec would her logical next move not be to have the family law file transferred to the Quebec courts? How would that effect LF32's position with regards to his rights to have a significant, or at the very least, equal role in raising his daughter?
Click to expand...

There are in fact considerable differences between family law in Quebec VS other provinces. For one thing, if LF32's ex has a legal aid certificate issued in Quebec, there is a set limit to how many hours she can obtain - no way will she be getting unlimited access to a free lawyer.

Settlement instead of trial would be HIGHLY encouraged.

If the file is transferred to Quebec, it would be less expensive for LF32 - especially at trial time IMO. Judges are not as conservative as in other provinces, Dad's do better - they also see a LOT of self-reps and are willing to assist them to a certain extent.

Aside from the mileage, LF32 might do better in a Quebec courtroom.
 
Typical orders say you can't take remove kids from the jurisdiction aside from short periods (defined as no more than two weeks) for VACATION. She would likely have a hard time proving she has made roots in another province via vacations, even if she takes said vacations every weekend. They are vacations only and not in residence there, unless she secures an address of some kind there, buys or rents a place. And if she does buy or rent a place there it would be considered a second address, I would think, not primary. However if she does buy or rent a place there it would be possible to use this as evidence of her intention to relocate at some point, you could force her into declaring it a second or vacation address which isn't primary. As long as primary address remains in the jurisdiction.
 
LovingFather32 said:
Addressing Stripes:

Doesn't sound harsh. I've gotten used to being told I have no rights and things are none of my business .. since separation. She agrees with you ..
Click to expand...

I really doubt that, as she doesn't know me from a hole in the ground and she sounds like someone with whom I would have very little in common.

If you're going to ask the internet for advice, you'll get some responses which are not what you want to hear. That doesn't mean that the responder is in league with Mom or on her side. The world doesn't divide neatly into allies and enemies.

Given what you've shared about your situation (Mom has family in Quebec and travels there frequently), a clause requiring parents to communicate every time Mom visits family sounds like a recipe for headaches. If the concern is that Mom will try to relocate with Kid, a clause addressing that directly - affirming Kid's province and district of residence - will be much more useful.
 
Rioe said:
My agreement has a paragraph about needing to inform my ex if I plan to take the children out of the province. Not get consent before doing so, just inform in advance. It wasn't anything either of us asked to have put in there, so it is probably pretty standard.

Of course, the only time I ever took the kids out of province since signing it was only for a few hours and I completely forgot about the clause.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it is a standard clause - and they use DM now to draft and draw from separation agreement clauses these days and unless requested, it wouldn't typically be part of one. Rioe, how old is your agreement? You've noted you forgot about the clause and didn't notify - what was the ex' reaction?

It's not a clause in mine from 1998, and I just checked the last 6 or so generated and exchanged between offices in the last few months and it is not in any of those, either.

Frankly, if my ex wanted to control/restrict my parenting time in that manner, I'd likely send a text on my way out of the province, particularly since I'm going to Grandma's house. What I do with the kidlet on my time is our time - what he does with his time, is his. And we don't live on a border town now, but I'm from one, and slipping in and out of provinces is a frequent occurrence.

Stripes has got it right.
 
Well .. we have some poster's who agree that it's completely reasonable to be informed when a child is leaving the province .. and some poster's who find it's not.

My opinion is that every situation is markedly different and I strongly believe that clauses are created for a reason. Most cases I read have such a clause. Not all judges adopt the "none-of-your-business where your kid is on other parents parenting time" approach.

But I got a wealth of good info on this topic and for that I thank all who contributed.

Stripes has got it right
Click to expand...
...In your opinion. There are many different ones circulating. I dont think it's a "right" vs. "wrong" thing.
 
Last edited:
I don't think knowing when your child exits the province matters.

The reality is that when you are divorced and the child is with the other parent you are pretty much completely irrelevant except in case of a major medical issue.

When my kids are not with me, they don't exist - its how I cope with it. There is nothing I can do to contact them, speak to them, know what they're doing so I just live as if I was childless.....

The fact you get to know when they are leaving the country is a relic from the past and only relevant if your ex wants to take them a non-hague convention country but I see no actual practical reason for the whole "seek permission" thing for any travelling as long as the parent is always in hague convention countries.
 
Links17 said:
I don't think knowing when your child exits the province matters.

The reality is that when you are divorced and the child is with the other parent you are pretty much completely irrelevant except in case of a major medical issue.

When my kids are not with me, they don't exist - its how I cope with it. There is nothing I can do to contact them, speak to them, know what they're doing so I just live as if I was childless.....

The fact you get to know when they are leaving the country is a relic from the past and only relevant if your ex wants to take them a non-hague convention country but I see no actual practical reason for the whole "seek permission" thing for any travelling as long as the parent is always in hague convention countries.
Click to expand...
Yeh .. I hear you Links. My ex is building status quo in QC though instead of here .. in an attempt to request a relocation come trial .. or after. Each case is unique. Different strokes for different folks.
 
mcdreamy said:
I don't believe it is a standard clause - and they use DM now to draft and draw from separation agreement clauses these days and unless requested, it wouldn't typically be part of one. Rioe, how old is your agreement? You've noted you forgot about the clause and didn't notify - what was the ex' reaction?
Click to expand...

The agreement is from 2011, so it's not that old. I don't remember if the clause came from our mediator who drafted the agreement quite efficiently, or from either of our lawyers who tinkered with it quite inefficiently. We probably just read it, had no problem with it and shrugged and left it in.

The time I forgot about it was just a day trip during a visit to the National Capitol Region, where I wasn't really thinking about Gatineau-Hull not actually being in Ontario. I clued in as I crossed the river. I told my ex about it at the first exchange afterwards when I was telling him how the trip went. He said "okay."

I tell my ex every time we leave town, just as a courtesy. I have no idea if he does the same, or keeps it from me. The kids haven't mentioned any secret trips though.

LFs situation is quite different from mine though. He's got an ex trying her best to circumvent everything reasonable and get the child to Quebec with her. She's got majority access time, and spends it ALL in Quebec from the sounds of it. Despite their interim order saying where the child officially resides, she's busy setting up a status quo that the child spends most of her time somewhere else. It's going to be up to the next judge to either agree with her and let her move the child to preserve the status quo established through guile, or slap her hard for disobeying the spirit of the interim agreement.

LF should highlight the continuation of her pattern of establishing status quo through manipulation in his trial submissions if his ex tries to insist that the child should be in Quebec. Also, once the child is in school in Ontario, it becomes harder for his ex to travel so often without making her miss school noticeably. This is why his ex is fighting to keep the child out of JK.

He definitely needs a mobility clause saying the child's residence shall not be moved out of the city without his consent in his final agreement.

Wait this all sounds familiar ... senatorial almost! As long as your official residence is in PEI, it doesn't matter that you spend most of your time living in Ottawa, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top