GrandParent,And,Rights,Grandch law GrandParent And Rights To Grandchildren In Canada
Bankruptcy is a situation, wherein an individual is termed as unable to discharge all the debts. When a person or a company is not able to pay off its creditors, it has an obligation to file a bankruptcy suit. In fact, a bankruptcy suit is a When you work with an attorney, you will have no problem reducing the risks associated with getting your case in front of a judge and jury, or other formal court, when you need to. However, every case is different. It is important to work wi
Lots ofdifferent articles are devoted to the problems of custody and access. Parentsare struggling against each other in courts so hard that it is sometimes hardto define who is right and what decision should be made by the court. In thiscustody war that is usually accompanied by a nervous divorce almost no onecares about the rights of grandparents. In this article we will bring morelight to this problem. In Canadathere were two main cases of grandparents and grandchildren: Chapman v. Chapmanin 2001 and Dobre v. Dobre in2004. Both of them were not accompanied by divorce, but had some other relatedissues. Chapman v. ChapmanIn 1998Ester Chapman the grandmother of ten-year-old Eric Chapman and his eight-year-oldsister Leanna applied to the court for monthly visits and weekly telephonecontact with her two grandchildren. Thegrandmother had visits with the children three to six times annually and thevisits were almost always in the presence of their parents, because they wereconcerned over the grandmother's diminished capacity to care for the childrenon her own. The issue in this case was whether accessby a grandparent to grandchildren who live with their parents should be imposedover the wishes of those parents and children. The case lasted three years andon March 2, 2001 the Ontario Court of Appeal decided that that it is thechildrens parents that have total and final authority to determine if and whenthe children visit with their grandmother. In the decision of the courtit was mentioned that the parents are responsible for the welfare of thechildren and they carry this legal duty alone. It was also mentioned that thedecision was made in the best interests of the children that were representedby their parents in the court. So the parents in the end came out as the rightones. Dobre v. DobreThe second case had acompletely different ending. In 2004 the grandparents from the fathers sideapplied to the court for access to their grandchildren, five-year-old Alexandraand three-year-old Antonio. The case came into court but unfortunately fatherwas not present at the case because he was attending a treatment program forhis drug addiction. The application was opposed only by the mother of thechildren. In this case the court decided that it will be in the interest of thechildren to have meetings with their grandparents and granted the grandparentssupervised access for three hours per week at an access centre. These two differentcases show that in similar situation the main influence are the outer factors,the court is still comparing both sides and normal grandparents look muchbetter that a couple where one of the spouses is a drug addict. So as you seeno serious history in this type of custody is written and any new case canbring a new decision and maybe some changes in custody laws. That is a goodthing, the bad thing is that unfortunately in the modern world it even comes tocourts when parents and grandparents can not agree.
GrandParent,And,Rights,Grandch