Just a word of warning. If you feel the need to relive some stress by visiting a rub and tug, pay in cash.

+1, stay strong x

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

But it does take the edge off in the present.

Again, it depends upon the parties and their counsel. If they are getting along: no need for such a clause. If they cannot agree upon what day it is: such a clause would be necessary.

Each Order is generally drafted by the lawyers or imposed by the Court to deal with all likely issues.