Lee MacGuyver and Mary Richards met in 1983 while attending Memorial University in Newfoundland and relocated to North Bay, Ontario. After living together for several years, they separated shortly before the birth of their daughter, Venessa, in late 1989. During her pregnancy, Richards went home to live with her mother but returned to North Bay when her child was seven months old. The couple lived together for six months but separated permanently thereafter. The relationship broke down because of MacGuyver’s drug and alcohol problems and his abusive behaviour towards Richards. In June 1991, a judge of the Ontario court, Provincial Division, awarded sole custody of the child to Richards. MacGuyver, who had entered a treatment program for his addictions, was given alterenate weekend access. in 1993, Richards made plans to marry a master corporal in the military who had been transferred to Washington for four years. After the wedding, she planned to move there with her daughter. MacGuyver applied to the court to vary the custody order to provide joint custody and to prohibit either parent from removing the child from North Bay without the other parent’s consent. The trial judge ordered that the mother retain sole custody but that the child continue to reside in North Bay. Mary Richards successfully appealed to the Ontario Court, General Division, which confirmed her sole custody and removed the requirement that the child remain in North Bay. MacGuyver appealed this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal, but his appeal was dismissed.
If you were the judge, who would you grant sole custody to? Mary Richards or Macguyver ? Do you agree with the decision of not removing the child from North Bay or allowing the child to leave ? If you choose giving custody to the other parent, why not the other?
who ever gives the best answers i will give them points
#1 by battocat on February 8, 2010 - 7:39 am
TO LONG
#2 by sunbun on February 8, 2010 - 7:57 am
face it…he screwed up
#3 by KELLI on February 8, 2010 - 8:38 am
Mary Richards, because she is the mother and she has not had a previous drug and alcohol abuse history.
#4 by WhipMeBeatMeFeedMeCheese on February 8, 2010 - 9:38 am
i don’t have all day to read the q
#5 by Shootsscores on February 8, 2010 - 9:42 am
Your doing research for law school aren’t you? LOL
OK, I would say i would award custody to the mother with visitation to the father. I would also restrict the mother ability to remove the child from a reasonable distance from the father until its emancipation. The reason for the mother is the substance abuse the father had history with.
A child does reasonably well with both parents in its life. Courts have a tendency to try and foster that philosophy.
#6 by tjmoore83102 on February 8, 2010 - 9:52 am
What type of relationship does he have with his daughter. If their close it would be wrong for the mother to move out of town.But then again their daughter is old enough, she should have a say in whats going on. If she didn’t want to move then she could go appeal to the judge.
#7 by Shut your mouth. on February 8, 2010 - 10:06 am
*Well given the father’s past history, he could easily have a sudden relapse and slip back to his old ways. Which could in turn endanger (if you will) his child and put her in a harmful situation. So that is something to consider of why the judge granted the custody to the mother and granted her request to let the child move away from North Bay.
.Secondly the mother has been there for the child’s entire life, and the father came back when the child was 7 months. He had not been there to watch his baby “grow up” and he wasn’t acting like much of a parental figure by any means.
~So I think the judge made the correct decision for letting Mary have sole custody of the child and lifting the rule that the child had to stay in North Bay. With the evidence that the father was not in the childs life the entire time anyways, and the drug and alcohol abuse on top of that…there is potential for relapses and the child should not be subject to it. The mother seems a lot more suited to be caring for a child then the father does. Given the circumstances of the case and his background.
*I do however think visitation rights are something the father should def. have. He does need to keep in constant contact with his child. Because she should not have to grow up w/o a father figure.