|
Re: I can use some of your support right now
Just a word of warning. If you feel the need to relive some stress by visiting a rub and tug, pay in cash.
|
Re: I can use some of your support right now
Originally Posted by Greenhill
(Post 10625851)
Being with your kid, when you can be, and raising him, in the best way you can, is all that counts.
Try to accept that your son is not a pawn in a game controlled by overly-possessive parents trying to outdo each other. Try to accept that your ex is entitled to half of everything that you both have, plus child support and probably spousal. If you can then allow yourself to understand that everything your ex says and does is both right, important and great, then things will begin to slowly and positively improve. However, just understand that, through your son, you and your ex will never be truly "separated" and all that courts and judges will do is enforce decisions when you and your ex can't agree. Act now in a way that you would like to see your son act when he, himself, is a man who is going through a similar relationship breakdown: with maturity, integrity and calm and a heart of gold :thumbup: |
Re: I can use some of your support right now
Putting offers made by one party to another in relation to issues upon which you are asking the Court to make a decision is not permitted (for obvious reasons). Such items can only be referred to once the Court has made a decision when the issue of costs falls to be determined.
|
Re: I can use some of your support right now
Originally Posted by Greenhill
(Post 10626898)
Would the judge expect/demand the order to have a non-removal clause or is this up to the lawyers to negotiate?
In theory, neither party would be able to travel with the child without the other's written consent as the border guards are generally very hot on such things. This being the case, a non removal is not always Ordered. |
Re: I can use some of your support right now
It sounds a horrendous situation. You were on these boards regularly when I joined and I had also wondered to where you had disappeared. You seem to be handling the legal side well and as others have said, know that you will get through it in the end.
|
Re: I can use some of your support right now
Bloody hell, UR, you don't do things by halves, do you! Not having been anywhere near a situation like this personally, I don't have any advice to offer (it seems you have lots already, most of it surprisingly consistent and helpful for a BE thread...) but you have my sympathy for a completely shitty nightmare and my best wishes that you can resolve it with the minimum of additional heartache and disruption for your son. Good luck.
|
Re: I can use some of your support right now
Hmm im not sure the red flags are there for anyone, you cant tell whats going to be around the corner for anyone. as human being's nothings a given.
i havent been through the same myself but have plenty of experience of friend's who have and as a children's social worker ive seen many family's go through the same thing. it sounds like you're doing fab. just keep the kids as your main focus regardless of what your ex attempts to do. its easy to get dragged into that circus and before you know it it becomes tit for tat and the kids needs are lost in the battle that has started between you and your ex. right now you arent going to manage friendship as youre too busy trying to be one parent families to the kids. but hopefully once things settle the friendship will return. its a long road and itll probably be full of times where you really want/need to let off steam. as long as the you do this is a safe environment ie no impact on the kids you'll be fine im sure. keep going as you are :) |
Re: I can use some of your support right now
I see, thanks for that.
The reason I raised this point was for awareness for the OP: if a non-removal clause is added to an order, it will basically be worded something like "Neither parent can travel with the child outside of Ontario without written permission from the other parent". With the order being an order, not an agreement, that means it's a criminal offence to take the child outside of the area specified. Point being, if you have a clause like this added, it means you need permission from the ex if you want to take your son to visit family in England. Which is fine, of course, if she's willing to give you permission.
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 10627100)
It depends upon the Judge and the lawyers. If one party changes residence, this be a "material change in circumstances" that would permit the Court to vary a previous Order. Sometimes, a material change arises simply because one party moves 15 kms away from their previous residence if, for example, the parties have shared parenting and such a move would mean that one party is no longer able to get a child to and from school during their parenting time (this would be the case in Calgary).
In theory, neither party would be able to travel with the child without the other's written consent as the border guards are generally very hot on such things. This being the case, a non removal is not always Ordered. |
Re: I can use some of your support right now
Feel your pain. I've been there, done that and have the empty bank account to prove it. Read this whole thread and was going to start chirping in with what to do but it's best if you just vent and we listen. AC is right, get a good lawyer.
Just keep telling yourself "it's only money" and stay to the high road, your kids will respect and thank you in the end - at least mine did. |
Re: I can use some of your support right now
Originally Posted by Greenhill
(Post 10627158)
I see, thanks for that.
The reason I raised this point was for awareness for the OP: if a non-removal clause is added to an order, it will basically be worded something like "Neither parent can travel with the child outside of Ontario without written permission from the other parent, such permission not to be unreasonably withheld". With the order being an order, not an agreement, that means it's a criminal offence to take the child outside of the area specified. Point being, if you have a clause like this added, it means you need permission from the ex if you want to take your son to visit family in England. Which is fine, of course, if she's willing to give you permission. |
Re: I can use some of your support right now
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 10626928)
Just a word of warning. If you feel the need to relive some stress by visiting a rub and tug, pay in cash.
Well done, I'm impressed. You beat me to it. :) |
Re: I can use some of your support right now
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 10627180)
Bloody hell, the poor guy's hurting here and baring his soul for us all to see, and all you can do is come up with a handjob wisecrack.
Well done, I'm impressed. You beat me to it. :) Just trying to bring a bit of levity and advice to a rather shitty situation for UL. Plus, booze and blow won't help in the long term. |
Re: I can use some of your support right now
So do they often allow immigrant parents to have allowable locations specified in their access for vacation clauses?
I was thinking something on the lines of "parent is allowed up to three weeks of access for annual vacation where up to two weeks of that vacation can be spent in [for example] England, Scotland or Belgium".
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 10627173)
The red text is what is usually added. Essentially, the Order needs to be drafted so that further trips to Court can be avoided. If it simply states without written permission, there is little incentive for the other party to co-operate. Judges hate parties using children as pawns and, normally, will come down very heavily on a party attempting to do so.
|
Re: I can use some of your support right now
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 10627200)
Just trying to bring a bit of levity and advice to a rather shitty situation for UL. Plus, booze and blow won't help in the long term.
|
Re: I can use some of your support right now
Originally Posted by Greenhill
(Post 10627204)
So do they often allow immigrant parents to have allowable locations specified in their access for vacation clauses?
I was thinking something on the lines of "parent is allowed up to three weeks of access for annual vacation where up to two weeks of that vacation can be spent in [for example] England, Scotland or Belgium". Each Order is generally drafted by the lawyers or imposed by the Court to deal with all likely issues. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 5:57 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.