Child Access Arrangements - Revisited Back

In this case the Applicant filed a Motion to Change a 2007 order and sought to change the access schedule between the two parents. 

Applicant's Position:

The Applicant sought an order for the following:
Respondent's Position:
The Respondent claimed that it had been the children’s routine for almost a decade now to see their family as much as access is granted.  He opposed the Applicant’s attempt to reduce access and claimed that the Applicant was trying to eliminate even more time with the children, including the time they spent with the children’s grandmother and cousins on their dad’s side of the family.

Background
The Applicant and the Respondent began living together in 2001 and separated in 2003.  There were 3 children from the relationship.  Custody, access and child support were resolved in a court proceeding with a final order in June 2007.  The parties had joint custody of their three children with the primary residence of the children being with the Applicant mother and generous access with the Respondent father.

The Respondent father began missing several access visits whereby the Applicant mother would be dropping off the children to his home only to find that he was not at home.  This would result in long periods of waiting, followed by finding a babysitter on short notice so that the Applicant could go to work.

The Applicant sought to have access occur every second weekend instead of every weekend.
This request was based on the fact that the children spend all of the weekends during the school year with the Respondent.  When the 2007 order was made the children were toddlers.  Because of the fact that the Applicant now works and the children are now in school, the only significant time available to the children and the Applicant to spend time together is during the weekends.  Changing the access would allow the children to spend half of the weekends in each month with the Applicant.

The Applicant sought the removal of the 5 kilometre mobility restriction for the following reasons:

Results of the Final Order varying the Order of 2007:


MF Lawyer © 2016 · Privacy Policy