, 
,
| Divorced parent from another country wants to relocate back to their home | ||
| I have decided I want to move back to Canada with my kids to be close to my entire family and all my friends. I would have my mum, dad, sister, aunts, uncles and friends to help me and we are all very close. I would also like my kids to grow up with my ni | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Posted 18 June, 2009, 08:09 AM
|
||
|
General Member
 |
Are you a divorced parent who wants to relocate? I am looking to rally as many people (men and women) who are in the same situation as me together to see if we can change the new Family Law amendment changed by the Howard govt in 2006. My story is this: I am a Canadian citizen who met my ex husband in the UK in Oct 2003. We fell pregnant early 2004 and we decided I would move to Australia with him (he is from here) We had our daughter in Dec 04 and our son in March 06. We split up in March 08 and I have stayed in Australia to see if things could work out on the parenting side of things. They have not. I have NO family at all in Australia and his family offers me VERY little support. My kids see their dad 4 days per month and see the extended family once a year at mxas other than seeing his parents maybe 2 times per month. I have decided I want to move back to Canada with my kids to be close to my entire family and all my friends. I would have my mum, dad, sister, aunts, uncles and friends to help me and we are all very close. I would also like my kids to grow up with my niece who is the same age as my son. With the new law I have found it will be almost impossible to win a relocation order to move back to Canada therefore forcing me to live in Australia with no support, no family, no help NOTHING just so their dad can see them 4 days per month. He makes $145,000 a year and pays me $250 a week. He can more than afford a plane trip to Canada. Again I am looking to find others out there who are going thru the same thing so we can band together and have something done about this law as it is the most atrocious and stupid law I have ever heard of. Thanks and hope to hear from everyone soon  Chrystie |
|
|
 ,
|
|
|
Posted 18 June, 2009, 08:26 AM
|
||
Percolo Alio
   |
Exactly what part of the legislation are you trying to have amended? Could you please quote that and also quote what you would have as a replacement. | |
|
|
,
|
|
|
Posted 18 June, 2009, 09:22 AM
|
||
|
General Member
|
I want to have the law where it states that 60B Objects of Part and principles underlying it (1) The objects of this Part are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by: (a) ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and (b) protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and (d) ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children. (2) The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child's best interests): (a) children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and (b) children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and (d) parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and (e) children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture). I agree that parents should each have the option to have a meaningful relationship with their children but think this needs to be defined more. To me- 4 days a month does not constitute a meaningful relationship especially when their dad plays soccer on one of those days. I think that judges are over looking both sides of the story for parents and seeing that only one thing matters- the other parent seeing the children when they feel suitable. I most definitely think 1C, 1D, 2BCDE need to be enforced more than just the fact that both parents should get to see the children. I want my kids to know their Canadian heritage and their family here. I do all of the decision-making, doctors appts, dentist, daycare, everything. he just takes the his 4 days and that's it. so the part about shared parenting and shared responsibility need to defined more and made more clear so that when you go to court you can specifically go through each item and show how one sided things are. |
|
|
|
,
|
|
|
Posted 18 June, 2009, 10:22 AM
|
||
|
Percolo Alio
|
Uhhhm, you now have me confused, from what I can see (and sorry if my eyes/mind don't see the subtle differences) the law says what you want it to say. This is what I understand the current law to say :-
I am further confused by your interpretation of what should be. You say you believe in the above, yet you would have your child deprived by relocating the child to another country, whilst what you appear to be saying is that in fact the child should have more contact with the other parent as you feel the other parent should do more. I certainly see that you are very confused, you say he does nothing in the 4 days of contact, but I see no indications that your daughter is neglected and if she is then rather than trying to get relocation you should be acting to ensure that such neglect does not happen. To be honest your description of your personal predicament, is all about you and has minimal consideration for the best interest of the child. I could fully understand why a magistrate or judge would rule out relocation, as the relocation you describe comes across as being all about what you want. The only exception being a slight consideration that the other parent can afford to travel to see the child, which could easily be seen as vengeance, by the way of enforcing monetary loss, rather than consideration for your daughter. Why can't you facilitate reasonable contact with the family members in Canada? You obviously earn quite a bit, about $65,000 taxable incomes based upon my calculations, plus another $12,000 in child support payments. I believe there would be other benefits such as some FTB. You could pay for them to visit, they could pay or alternately, although possibly restricted, you could go to visit them. |
|
|
|
,
|
|
|
Posted 18 June, 2009, 12:20 PM
|
||
Platinium Member
 |
The Howard Govt. has done more for the benefit of the Children than any other to date. One needs to see what the then law was compared to now, a vast improvement! RELOCATION should in no way be perceived as being in the best interest of Children, By doing so, removes the active role of the non live with parent, reducing time with their children can not be seen as a good thing. |
|
|
|
,
|
|
|
Posted 18 June, 2009, 02:07 PM
|
||
|
Non-joined user
|
First off I do not make anywhere near $65,000 and I have NO idea where the hell you got that from. I work part time now due needing to have quality time with my children. I make $25,000 a year. Why should I have to pay for my family to visit, why should my family have tyo be the ones to visit? The children have experienced 4 years of Australia so why should they not be allowed to experience at minimum 4 years of Canada? Their dad does not play an active role in their life so why should we have to stay in a city that does not have a lot to offer so that he can see them when he feels like it? I want my kids to have a solid family background, i want them to grow up with other kids especially my niece and many of my friends in Canada who have kids. I want them to experience seasons and snow, i want them to learn a second language. In Australia they will see their dad 4 days a month, their grandparents 2 times a month and the rest of the family once a year. There is only one friend I have with children and he does not have more than 2 or 3 friends with children. To get to the snow I would have to drive 8 plus hours each time. There is no requirement to learn any other languages in Australia, no multiculturalism is taught. Some of my reasons are selfish yes of course they are. I want to be with my family. Why should it be that just because we have children in Australia I forever am stuck there? That hardly seems fair.  Last edit: 18 June, 2009, 02:23 PM by Secretary SPCA
|
|
|
|
,
|
|
|
Posted 18 June, 2009, 05:53 PM
|
||
|
Percolo Alio
|
Chrystie, I calculated your income based upon the combination of the details that you provided, $250 per week CS ($1000 per month), the other parents taxable income $145,000, a level of care under 52% (48 nights per annum), one child under 13. All you have to do is use either the calculator on here or the CSA's estimator and change the 1 unknown, your taxable income until the result is $1000 per month CS liability. It's a very simple thing to do. If however you were earning $25,000 then the CS liability would be close to $1300 per month, thus you would be getting about $15,000 pa in child support. You ask why you should pay, generally in this world people expect to pay for what they want, they on the whole expect to earn the money for their wants and have the ability to then determine what they can realistically have. However the real questions should be, why should someone else foot the bill for your wants and desires? The predicament you are in is highly unlikely to not consist of decisions that you made of your own free will, you are the common denominator in where your life is today, you need to take some ownership of your predicament rather than expect another to dig you out.
Excuse me, but you are very wrong, in fact this very year many of my son's homework projects have been based upon multiculturalism and I believe, well at least here in NSW, that other languages are taught. I'm not sure about other states, perhaps others can advise. It does appear that you are painting the picture as black as can be, rather than trying to see that there is light. Perhaps looking for the switch would turn on the light, rather than trying to find another light in another room. Also about your predicament, I am in a similar boat to yourself. Born and lived in the UK for 4 5ths of my life. Moved here after my son was born (he was 6 months old at the time), the ex left taking my son some 6 hours away (when he was 6). I had no-one at all and I'd dare say was as shy if not shyer than yourself, plus due to various factors was not really open to having friends, but I conquered that and now have a wonderfully supportive wife. The main difference, I understood that I would likely not be able to return to the UK and acted within this reality, even though I thought my son deserved and would fare better in many ways back home. However as things turned out such a visit is very likely to happen next year. I have no expectation that the other parent pays for my son to see my family and could not even think that anyone other than myself should foot the bill. In fact those who know a little about me on here, would know that I don't chase CS even though I could. Those few who actually get to speak to me in person or on the phone, will know that I have actually done things beyond what is normal perhaps even sensible to accommodate the ex in order to show my son that there is no longer conflict in regard to the separation. Uhhm only a year and a quarter, sheesh what was I going through at that stage, certainly I was still very much in the post-separation phases and wasn't over the separation. I can honestly say thank god I didn't do some of the things that I felt that I should do. Perhaps that's an area you could look into. Perhaps post some questions for Sage to answer or provide advice on. What about what the other parent wants for the child? Perhaps invite the other parent here to join in and provide the other side? Perhaps with all the knowledge available on here some good could come from it. You are not forever stuck here, you are free to leave, just not with the child, well at least on a permanent basis, and this is to protect the child from the emotional abuse suffered by what would likely effectively be the loss of the child's parent. My son only got to see me on a monthly basis two nights except during school holidays when he came here for half of the holidays. I understand that the costs associated with this limited time were, on a time based factor, far far greater than full time care. I also know very well that CS even at the lower level that I was paying, was far in excess of what was actually need for support, by a factor of at least 10. I have little doubt that my ex claimed that I wasn't paying enough or supporting my son enough, especially only a year and a quarter after separation, yet that claim was not the truth. The only thing that I believe I did wrong was to not phone enough, however I believe I had good reasons to not phone as often as many would expect. A year or so ago, we drove to the snow, something like 8 hours from here, well that was to Tathra, the snow ended up being about another 3 hours, well the way that I went anyway  . I didn't see that as an earth shattering chore, we had a lot of fun, as we generally do when we travel long distances.
Last edit: 18 June, 2009, 08:52 PM by MikeT
|
|
|
|
,
|
|
|
Posted 18 June, 2009, 11:46 PM
|
||
Percolo Alio
|
What are you suggesting here? Are you suggesting that the legislation should ensure the other parent, in this case dad, should have more contact? Many of our members here are quite keen to see a rebutable presumption of equal time parenting. If dad had at least half the time how would you feel about that? Do you think if he had the two children more often that would benefit the situation and allow you to establish another relationship here in Australia or else where? Did the father want more time or was the 4 days all that was ordered? Or is that what you agreed on. I must say it is very unusual to see a dad who only wants 4 days a month and no overnight contact. Shared parental responsibility is very clearly defined. You can read about that in the explanatory memorandum or the Act. It is about taking part in and discussing key major factors such as schooling and medical, religious and cultural upbringing. There is nothing stopping you from taking the kids to Canada in school holidays or if they are not at school any time... 2004 (5yo) and 2006 (3yo) so the children are fairly young. The education system says they will get 100 hours in another language at secondary school. There is nothing to stop you starting French lessons now in anticipation of getting to Canada for holidays. There is also no law that saws you cannot relocate. That seems to be some hysteria created by journalists. The law is clear, very clear about meaningful relationship. The court does not say you cannot relocate as long as you can GENUINELY effect a meaningful relationship. We disagree with the notion that web cams can effect that relationship and I would suggest to you that if 4 days a month or 48 days a year was all dad wanted then I would certainly be talking about a significant if not all school holidays in Australia as part of any arrangement. That would equate to well in excess of what he has now. Have you broached the subject either directly or with a mediation centre to assist you? In respect to changes you suggest are required. I am very unclear what you are seeking. You say most definitely think 1C, 1D, 2BCDE need to be enforced more than just the fact that both parents should get to see the children. What specifically do you mean. What do you mean by enforced. What changes , words do you suggest to s 1C,1D, 2BCDE Was my post helpful? If not, please let us know how we can do better If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity |
|
|
|
,
|
|
|
Posted 20 June, 2009, 05:12 PM
|
||
|
Non-joined user
|
Although I am not involved in a relocation dispute, I can fully understand why Chrystie would want to move to Canada with her children. I don't accept that 4 days/month is evidence of a meaningful relationship with the father. I am presuming that this is all he wanted to do. I can't imagine a court agreeing to only 4 days/mth contact and it doesn't fit with the tone of the emails from Chrystie that she would object to more time being spent with the father. So I am thinking that this is a case of a dad not really wanting to be involved in his children's lives and has gone for the bare minimum of contact time. It's not clear if these arrangements were decided by the parents themselves, but it would seem to be the case. This is not a meaningful relationship for any child - especially if Dad plays soccer on one of the days he is supposed to be with his children. I think in this case the best interests of the children would be served if Chrystie moved to were she was able to get the support she needs to raise her children. She is the one doing the majority of parenting and the hard work of parenting and so I believe she should be able to put herself in the best possible position to do that work. This is where the law is flawed. It is not being practical or reasonable if 4 days/mth is classified as develpoing "a meaningful relationship" nor is it significant or substantial time with the father. The father could of course ask for more time, not sure if this has happened. My children's father only wants minimal time with his children - this is a very real experience for many of us out there. I would love my ex-husband to show more interest in his children but he just doesn't want the responsibility or the hard work of being a more involved parent. He left the marriage and our children and has gone off to make a new life with minimal family and parenting responsibility involved. So it does happen that some fathers don't want to be involved much with their children and I would guestimate that it is quite a significant number who don't want the responsibility of 50/50 care. So I believe that in this case, if the father is only spending 4days/mth with his children, then the mother has the majority of parenting responsibility and in the best interests of the children, the major parent should be allowed to parent in the way that supports them doing that work best, in this case in Canada with her family and friends as a support network. There is nothing harder than parenting children alone. Do what you think is the best for the children Chrystie, you're their mother and you know what's best for them at this point in time. Good luck. |
|
|
|
,
|
|
|
Posted 21 June, 2009, 08:42 AM
|
||
|
Percolo Alio
|
Actually guest, the fact is that Chyrstie has very likely provided misleading and or incorrect information. The ip address used for the posts as Chrystie and as the guest is an ip address in a range that is allocated via ARIN to a Canadian company operating in Calgary, in the state of Alberta. Thus the very core of the argument, that she is tied to Australia, is a very unconvincing argument considering the fact about the ip address that is being used. Perhaps Chrystie would explain why she says she is in Australia (NSW according to her postcode, so what I have said about schools holds) whilst using a Canadian ip address. One has to then consider everything else she has said in the light of this. There are also other factors which simply do not hold, the CS payments quoted just did not fit with the CS system, as has been shown. The facts she stated about schooling here in Australia were incorrect. It is my belief that this may very well be a contrived story. So contrived likely in order to support those who are against shared parenting and are pushing against children being protected from the exploitation and abuse of parents who think they have a unilateral right of ownership to those children. Considering that there is such a great likelihood that Chrystie, is not providing the truth, then it is very unlikely that the 4 days per month is factual and is the typical sort of argument put forward by those with an agenda of discrediting fathers, by trying to make out that fathers are uncaring, in order to exploit, and thus abuse, the children of separation and to then be provided for financially. I myself could have been described as only having 2 days a month access (actually it was 2 days per month plus half the school holidays), it was not because I didn't want more access, it was because a) that it would have been very impractical due to the distance and primarily b) because it was a lot better than the 0 access imposed by the other parent. The latter situation, i.e. the father being denied access, rather than not wanting access, is by far the more common actual situation (one pointer to this is the dissipation by gender of those seeking their children who have been removed overseas) . I think you will find that many parents denying the access to the other parent lie and blame the other parent due to their guilt, and due to their inability to be socially accepted for such actions.
Uhhm guest, you are the same guest that posted how co-operative you and the other parent are in the post where you claim to have child costs that amount to $3,400 per month, yet you now turn round and say that he only want's minimal time when by what you say he has 20%, which is classed as regular care. It is most certainly not minimal. How do you explain this inconsistency in your posts guest? Last edit: 21 June, 2009, 09:05 AM by MikeT
|
|
|
|
,
|
|
|
Posted 22 June, 2009, 04:07 PM
|
||
Platinium Member
|
It is apparent this Chrystie is a stirrer presenting a selective and distorted view of what is happening. Firstly she is in NSW and then posts from Canada. Secondly her Child Support figures just don't add up in relation to her ex's income. Thirdly her costs of mediation are way off. Chrystie do you think the people on this site are as dumb as you? |
|
|
|
,
|
|
|
Posted 22 June, 2009, 06:13 PM
|
||
|
Silver Member
 |
Conan, no comment on the first two issues you raised, but I think you've misinterpreted Chrystie on the third. I read her comment about the "$30K cost each" as being what it would cost if they DON'T settle at mediation. Which I believe is probably fairly on the money. I've heard of family lawyers saying to their clients that it will cost them the price of a car each to go to court. | |
|
|
,
|
|
|
Posted 26 June, 2009, 01:03 PM
|
||
|
Silver Member
|
In order for the father of Christie's children to facilitate the same time with the children if she was to move back to Canada, the father would have to ensure that he takes at least 50 days per year off his high paying job to have the same time with his children as he does now. That would entail 2 days travel time and 48 days with his children. When the father did visit his children where would he stay, would Christie offer him accommodation for his stay in Canada. Does Christie want the father to take multiple trips to Canada to have the same time with the children as he does now. Christie you have mentioned the benefits to your children if you move back to Canada, what about the most important benefit for the children and that is to have a meaningful relationship with both parents. |
|
|
|
,
|
|
|
Posted 03 July, 2009, 05:47 AM
|
||
|
Silver Member
|
International relationships can sometimes end up as sad matters. Incredible costs follow. Sometimes the visiting parent is well recieved for a while, then made to feel unwelcome. Christies matter if true, is an indication that persons should learn more about laws and expectations before jumping off the deep end in a foreign country, especially with a person with a different citizenship. We have many Canadians here in Australia. Perhaps Christie should seek more friendships with other ex-canadians. You can move back to Canada with your children, if they want to when they grow up. In the meantime you can't expect to have unequal rights to the other parent. I am inclined to lean towards the view of Mike t |
|
|
|
,
|
|
, ,
Forums
Rules
Groups
Unread
Recommend
Donate
