Vacations/Appointments Question

[LovingFather32]

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

Precisely. This was not the judges intention for status quo. The judge even wrote in the mobility clause "to ensure an effective status quo in (this city).

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.

Thank the lord other's see it. In the judges endorsement ..she even wrote "I find that the mother didnt even look at schools in her area"

S/K isn't that long away .. she doesnt know one school on her area? To me thats telling.

Plus I remember MIL discussing how D4 would benefit from QC schools at an exchange .. in front of the supervisor.

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.

Yes. This is of paramount importance.

It's like I know what she's up to but can't do anything about it. Like some posters state .. none of my business (until she moves because she built status quo)? When does that become my business .. when D4 is 2.5 hours away instead of 15 minutes in a mtl school?

At least with a a clause of her providing me courtesy notification that she was leaving the province .. I would know exactly how often. But then again .. who says she would give that notification.

 

[mcdreamy]

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. LF32

LFs situation is quite different from mine though.

Actually, no, I don’t think it's all that different, Rioe. The OP apparently has an order that according to him “clearly states” effective status quo is maintained in Ottawa. This ex can’t set up alternate status quo. And, of course, they live in a border town, with grandparents on both sides – When I was living in that town, we moved frequently between borders for best buys on burger meat, chicken, etc. The OP’s request for notice appears to be aggressive and controlling.

And btw, fwiw, both my ex and I certainly would not have placed our kidlet into the Ontario JK system.. it is essentially an overpriced, glorified daycare system that the Ontario liberals put into place to buy votes. Was the OP's motion judge a 'Capital L' Liberal?

It's funny, I think my ex is more of a political conservative socially, but we would not have tossed our kidlet into jk, we both expect more from our caregivers. And the provincial liberals won that year based on the appeal to the typical low/middle income family need to lose their daycare bill, which is understandable.

But the political forecast is changing, and the Ontario jk might be on the cutting board. Our household is already putting some financial decisions on hold pending the upcoming election, Harper has yet to balance a budget, and overpaid teachers can’t produce a report card apparently. It is going to be an interesting election.

I believe that in a case like mine (which is not your average case) .. that this is not an unreasonable request (In our opinions). LF32

Apparently I need to spend more time here reading and get out of my summer vaca /yoga brain mode. Did something exceptional happen in the last few weeks with your case?

...In your opinion. There are many different ones circulating. I dont think it's a "right" vs. "wrong" thing.

In my opinion, Stripes and Links have more of an “accurate” thing going on as it relates to parenting 2015.

 

[LovingFather32]

And, of course, they live in a border town, with grandparents on both sides –

Who lives on a border town? Not me. And actually MIL lives way out of mtl, past indian reserves. It's quite the drive. Not just tiptoeing over to a COSTCO for a good deal for a few minutes.

And btw, fwiw, both my ex and I certainly would not have placed our kidlet into the Ontario JK system..

Thank you for your opinion on the Ontario j/k. Working in many schools I have witnessed first hand how amazing these teachers and ECE's are.

More importantly, I witness children develop themselves and learn in a holistic manner.

I'm sorry to hear that you have such a negative view of Ontario J/K. I can assure you that its much more than glorified daycare.

Politics suck .. yep. But j/k accomplish's quite a bit for a child. I can produce the gov't studies confirming this if you wish.

The OP’s request for notice appears to be aggressive and controlling.

Of course it is. Never a dull moment with you McDreamy

It's a pretty common clause. You can make it in to this big aggressive, controlling monstrosity if you'd like.

But that's pretty foolish given it's a fairly common clause in final agreements (which many posters here have)

 

[Rioe]

Precisely. This was not the judges intention for status quo. The judge even wrote in the mobility clause "to ensure an effective status quo in (this city).

...

It's like I know what she's up to but can't do anything about it. Like some posters state .. none of my business (until she moves because she built status quo)? When does that become my business .. when D4 is 2.5 hours away instead of 15 minutes in a mtl school?

At least with a a clause of her providing me courtesy notification that she was leaving the province .. I would know exactly how often. But then again .. who says she would give that notification.

Well, you know your ex is blatantly disregarding setting a status quo in Ontario. Even without being notified by her, can you work on accumulating evidence to use in court later? Photographs of her packed car when you drop off the child? Journaling where the child says she was when with your ex? Maybe others have some suggestions for how you can prove to a judge how often your ex goes to Quebec.

Your next chance to modify the agreement is your trial, isn't it? So you can't ask for a courtesy notification clause in advance of that, can you? Or is there some way to get before a judge sooner because your ex is already defying the interim order by not honouring the order to create status quo in Ontario? These are questions for your lawyer because I don't know the answers.

Surely, you can put in your evidence that the mother brings the child to Quebec every access, instead of building status quo in Ontario. Then your ex either denies your evidence by lying and saying she stays in Ontario, in which case there are no issues with status quo and you should have equal access in Ontario. Or she confirms your evidence and tells the truth and admits that she and the child spend all their time in Quebec, in which case you point out that she has once again been unreasonable, has ignored the interim order for establishing status quo in Ontario, clearly continues to try to remove you from your daughter's life, and custody should therefore go to you in Ontario with only EoW access to her in Quebec.

 

[LovingFather32]

Your next chance to modify the agreement is your trial, isn't it? So you can't ask for a courtesy notification clause in advance of that, can you?

To be honest I was just going to ask ex. I don't want any implied consent that I was okay with her building a new status quo in QC.

Well, you know your ex is blatantly disregarding setting a status quo in Ontario. Even without being notified by her, can you work on accumulating evidence to use in court later?

Evidence is the tough part. I have D4 telling me she's always in QC .. never sleeps at home. I cant resort to anything stalkerish .. nor would I.

The only real way is to get her bank statements. That would prove she was always there .. as would her phone records. The burden of proof is key here...but it doesnt seem to easy to acquire.

 

[LovingFather32]

Or she confirms your evidence and tells the truth and admits that she and the child spend all their time in Quebec, in which case you point out that she has once again been unreasonable, has ignored the interim order for establishing status quo in Ontario, clearly continues to try to remove you from your daughter's life, and custody should therefore go to you in Ontario with only EoW access to her in Quebec.

Your wording is impeccable. The above would be a logical response and pretty much exactly how I would address it.

 

[mcdreamy]

Of course it is. Never a dull moment with you McDreamy

Stop with the personal attacks. Your bullying won't silence me.

 

[LovingFather32]

Stop with the personal attacks. Your bullying won't silence me.

Where were you bullied or attacked personally? Because I said "never a dull moment"?

False allegations should be frowned upon not only in family law .. but on these forums as well.

 

[mcdreamy]

are you done editing?

 

[LovingFather32]

Fixed a spelling error. Nobody's perfect. I'll try harder next time sorry. Do you have any advice? If not ... there are many other threads

McDreamy .. I would kindly ask that you keep this thread on track. Name calling (bully) and false accusations have no place here.

Moving on ....

It seems judges really value good parenting plans.

This 2015 case https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc5129/2015onsc5129.html

A very good 2015 read whereby the judge loved the fathers parenting plan:

which included the clause:

Both Timothy and Alana shall provide each other a detailed itinerary of any trips or planned vacations at least seven days before the commencement of travel, including location, travel arrangements and accommodation, as well as telephone numbers Madison can be contacted at during the vacation.

Glad to see judges are still agreeing this clause in 2015 .. and that it doesn't automatically make the parent aggressive or controlling.

 

[mcdreamy]

Of course I have advice: Why lie? You did not edit to fix a spelling error, you edited to add your further comments. I can post your original if necessary, but I think you'll concur with this statement.

You attacked my character when you directed your derogatory comment specifically towards me. If I see you doing something similar to any other poster, I’ll delete your post(s).

I ran the “fairly common clause” by a couple of people today that regularly draft separation agreements because now I’m curious about this mobility clause you are insistent on [although you already have an interim motion that confirms status quo remains in your area and can not be moved?], and they advised out-of-country is automatic, provincial not so much. And as several others have also noted in this thread, exiting the province doesn’t seem noteworthy. I certainly don’t think it is a given.

And, btw, re: favourable government studies on government programs – well… that is sort of what they do, isn’t it?

 

[HammerDad]

I am re-opening this thread due to requests by various parties.

Keep it clean in here and unnecessary comments to yourselves.

 

[arabian]

Good ^ I think it is a very interesting subject. In many CanLii cases I have read judges specifically refer to the false setting of status quo during child custody battles leading up to court.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/d...gcXVvIGNoaWxkIGN1c3RvZHkAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1

"21. Very much related to this is the court’s increasing concern that parents should not be allowed to gain strategic advantage – and children should not be needlessly disrupted -- by a parent unilaterally creating a new status quo through manipulation or deliberate acts. Izyuk v. Bilousov 2011 ONSC 6451 (CanLII), 2011 ONSC 6451 (SCJ); Nyari v. Velasco 2008 ONCJ 272 (CanLII), 2008 ONCJ 272 (OCJ).

22. A parent who engages in self-help tactics despite the best interests of the child will generally raise serious questions about their own parenting skills and judgment. In many cases, courts conclude manipulative, selfish or spiteful parents simply can’t be entrusted with custodial authority they would likely abuse. Izyuk v. Bilousov (supra); Clement v. Clement 2010 ONSC 1113 (CanLII), 2010 ONSC 1113 (SCJ)."

In LF32's situation the interim Order is that a status quo be maintained in XXX city. It is a very specific Order with no room for misunderstanding IMO.

 

[LovingFather32]

Very good case law indeed Arabian.

I guess the reason I started the thread was because my case differs from other's, who's ex may simply be going for a visit, or to COSTCO ..or for the weekend at a resort.

In contrast, my ex is forming a new status quo...against the judges wishes.

This becomes very difficult for me to prove obviously.

So Blink's link in this thread's first page on "standard clauses" kind of woke me up a little.

Nothing controlling nor aggressive .. she doesn't need my permission. Just notification so I can at least know how frequent her "visit's" are. But again, I'm sure she wouldn't report when she goes anyways .. why would she? She knows she's going against an order.

Another reason I wanted to politely request it was so that at least I could show that I was aware of it but not accepting of it (acquiescence). How can I show that if I say nothing. Isn't saying nothing implied consent?

Yes, my situation is very tough. I say nothing = implied consent/acquiescence .. if I even mention a common out-of-province clause it transforms in to aggressive/controlling by some. I certainly dont want to come across as the latter .. not my intention at all.

 

[HammerDad]

This clause:

[FONT=&quot]5.8 [ ] If either the Applicant or Respondent plans a vacation with the [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][ ] child [ ] children, that party shall give the other party a detailed itinerary at least ____ days before the vacation begins, or as soon as is practical if plans are made less than _____ days before the vacation begins, including the name of any airline carrier and flight times, accommodation, including address and telephone numbers, and details about how to contact the [ ] child [ ] children during the trip.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Is generally considered in connection with international travel for vacations. In your situation, where you live on a border town with another province, and the ex has family in that province where they going to visit, I doubt it would be considered necessary or reasonable for the ex to provide you with such info each time.

The travel/distance you mention is equal to me going to visit my parents a few hours away, albeit in the same province.

I believe I read that you already have an order/agreement which stipulates that the child cannot be moved outside a certain distance. If/when the ex says she is moving (or has moved) you invoke that clause and go from there. What you are doing now is worrying more about "what if's" and whatever nefarious plans you think that your ex may be up to. That is not sound logic. React to issues as they actually arise. Don't waste energy thinking about what the ex MAY do.

 

[LovingFather32]

This clause:
Is generally considered in connection with international travel for vacations. In your situation, where you live on a border town with another province, and the ex has family in that province where they going to visit, I doubt it would be considered necessary or reasonable for the ex to provide you with such info each time.

The travel/distance you mention is equal to me going to visit my parents a few hours away, albeit in the same province.

I believe I read that you already have an order/agreement which stipulates that the child cannot be moved outside a certain distance. If/when the ex says she is moving (or has moved) you invoke that clause and go from there. What you are doing now is worrying more about "what if's" and whatever nefarious plans you think that your ex may be up to. That is not sound logic. React to issues as they actually arise. Don't waste energy thinking about what the ex MAY do.

Sound advice. Thanks HD. Perhaps I am wasting my energy on this issue. Still new to all this and don't want any acquiescence or implied consent. Ex tells me often she goes to QC. D4 says she doesnt sleep at home.

This thread was to address what I should be doing about that.

React to issues as they actually arise. Don't waste energy thinking about what the ex MAY do.

Haven't reacted yet. I just wanted some good discussion on it .. the reason I love these forums. So many great perspectives.

 

[HammerDad]

My D rarely slept at my old apartment when she was little (like 2'ish). It was a one bedroom, so when she was over, she got my bed and I slept on the couch. It was just easier to stay at my parents house, which was 2+ hours away, as they had the room and it allowed everyone to see each other (plus, I got some help with my kid).

Until the ex notifies you that she plans on moving, or has moved, there is really little that can be done. You have the clause in your order/agreement to fall back on should you need to. Right now you are trying to practice preventative medicine, and your ex would have little trouble spinning it that you are acting in a controlling manner as she is only going to visit her parents.

IMO, I'd drop it. Should the ex move, you deal with it then. But the fact that she spends most her time with her family isn't going to be seen as unreasonable or uncommon.

 

[LovingFather32]

You have the clause in your order/agreement to fall back on should you need to.

I hear what you're saying. And I agree with a lot of it.

My ex can't practice paralegal in Ontario. Only QC. Not the correct provincial credentials. All her friends/family/support is in QC. She told OCL she was planning to become a paralegal again and that QC has fruitful opportunities.

The mobility clause in place now is only an interim thing. Trial is approaching .. all new stuff. I'm assuming ex will come in with all of the above (family, support, job .. indirectly informing the courts how comfy D4 has become in the neighborhoods there (status quo).

I believe in your situation HD it was in the same province. Also my ex can only work in QC with her education. It's very obvious the court fight I will eventually have. I'm just trying to prepare a bit for it.

She may also say .. LF32 even knew about all our time here. He was okay with it.

I'm sure she can spin it in to aggression/controlling (spin being the key word). I'm totally cognizant of that, which is why I've refrained from bringing it up at all.

I'm getting good info on the matter here. Despite all my thoughts here, I would tend to agree with you HD that I probably should only fight battles as they arise.

Thank you

 

[HammerDad]

Your ex could surely get a job in a law firm in your area. The fact that she is bi-lingual and has experience with Quebec law would be an asset.

Depending on the nature of law your ex is in, she could easily get a job at one of the larger law firms in Ottawa. It may not be a clerk/paralegal position initially, but it may work up to that. If she really wants to work in Ontario, all she needs is the ILCO courses ( Exam - Course Schedules ) and she could get a job quite easily.

All that aside, I hear a lot of "she could" "she may" "she can". What the ex may do and what she has done are different things. Yeah, she can say she you knew that she was always there and didn't say anything about it, so you obviously are fine with her being there. And your retort is you were aware she was visiting family, however her residence was in Ontario. That you believed it was in the child's best interests to be familiar with their entire family. That it wasn't your intention that the child be allowed to reside there full time.

As for your current order, interm orders tend to become permanent.

 

[LovingFather32]

Your ex could surely get a job in a law firm in your area. The fact that she is bi-lingual and has experience with Quebec law would be an asset.

Depending on the nature of law your ex is in, she could easily get a job at one of the larger law firms in Ottawa. It may not be a clerk/paralegal position initially, but it may work up to that. If she really wants to work in Ontario, all she needs is the ILCO courses ( Exam - Course Schedules ) and she could get a job quite easily.

All that aside, I hear a lot of "she could" "she may" "she can". What the ex may do and what she has done are different things. Yeah, she can say she you knew that she was always there and didn't say anything about it, so you obviously are fine with her being there. And your retort is you were aware she was visiting family, however her residence was in Ontario. That you believed it was in the child's best interests to be familiar with their entire family. That it wasn't your intention that the child be allowed to reside there full time.

As for your current order, interm orders tend to become permanent.

Fantastic post. Great info.

Thanks HD.