as a lot of you have read in previous posts, kerri, (now an x of mine.) has been taken to
court and i had posted all legal documentation and my comments pertaining to this case as
they became available.
January 6, 2010 was the court date set to attempt to settle this matter. I give you the
report as posted to kerri’s blog. I combined multiple entries thanks to mobile blogging
having space limitations. Note i did edit for obvious spelling errors while putting this
together. My final thoughts and comments will of course follow.
On-site mediation report
Submitted to: The Honourable Mr. D.M Steinberg
Court file: F-1585/09
Parties: Jenkins, Barbra (Applicant, paternal grandmother) Murtland, Kerri (respondant,
mother) Remmelzwaal, Joshua (respondant, father)
child(ren): Arik Remmelzwaal, born 3 November, 2007
Mediator: Al Wilkinson, B.A., B.Ed. Acc. F.M.
Date: 6 January, 2010
Referral: The parties were referred to on-site mediation by counsel
Interviews: A total of three sessions were held as follows:
Mrs. Jenkins on 6 January, 2010
Mr. Remmelzwaal on 6 January, 2010
Ms. Murtland on 6 January, 2010
Mrs. Jenkins, Ms. Murtland & Mr. Remmelzwaal on 6 January, 2010
Outcome: A full agreement was reached on all the issues raised.
It is much to the credit of the parties that they were able to negotiate the issues
arising out of their family law dispute.
Subject to independant legal advice, all parties agree that on a TEMPORARY and WITHOUT
1. The parties shall consult each other and the respondant father before making any
major decision regarding the child and shall provide, upon request, written authorization
for the other party or the respondant father to obtain information about the child
from any professionals involved with the child (i.e. teachers, doctors)
2. The applicant paternal grandmother and the respondant mother shall advise each
other of any emergency concerning the child while he is in their care as soon as
3. Commencing 18 January, 2010, the applicant paternal grandmother, the respontant
mother and respondant father shall share time with the child on a 2 week block as
a. The respondent mother shall share time with the child from Monday at 10 a.m. of
week 1 until Tuesday of week 2 at 6 p.m. and he shal be primarily resident with her
at that time.
b. The applicant paternal grandmother shall share time with the child from Tuesday
of week 2 at 6 p.m. until the following Monday at 10 a.m. and he shall be primarily resident
with her at that time.
c. The respondent father shall share time with the child when and as the applicant
paternal grandmother deems appropriate.
4. The mother shall ensure the child is not in the presence of any current or future
common-law partner, unless or until the applicant paternal grandmother has provided
written consent for the child to be introduced to that person, when the child is
in her care.
5. The applicant paternal grandmother and the respondand mother shall communicate
about the child’s needs only via a notebook sent along with the child at each transition.
6. The applicant paternal grandmother and the respondant mother shall consider mediation
to resolve any differences regarding parenting the child prior to litigating.
7. Neither party shall talk badly about the other party in the presence of the child
nor shall they allow anyone else to do so.
The parties have been advised to seek legal advice regarding this report.
The purpose of mediation is to reach a negotiated settlement, not to conduct a comprehensive
investigation, to provide opinion or provide recommendation.
The information provided to mediate was not independantly verified by the mediator
(especially as this pertains to financial matters)
This closed on-site mediation report only limited information, which I, as the mediator,
consider to be relevant. Al Wilkinson, On-site mediator.
a lot of this makes sense, and frankly, in my opinion is the best for everyone. i did note
that josh’s supposed rights being signed over to his mother never came up. this begs the
question, was what was done regarding josh’s rights actually legal? i guess we’ll never know
unless kerri posts a comment here regarding this. secondly. i noticed that barb’s repeated
jabs at blindness and other disabilities as shown in the initial paperwork as posted
previously here never came up here. I’ll take that as a sign that the courts through that one
out of hand as being irrelivent. the question regarding custody? again, we never got a
resolution to that one either. I beg to wonder what the hell’s up with item 4 as listed
above? How much arm twisting occured to make kerri agree to that one in the first place? In
my opinion, barb’s an opinionated self centered egotistical bitch with an ego that rivals
that of nicoli carpathia, (left behind reference, sorry.) The day she allows someone that
hasn’t been approved by her to be in the presence of arik is the day hell freezes over. Barb
controling who can interact with the child is again, a sign that barb’s trying to control
kerri and her life choices, llike you’d control a child. So if say kerri marries someone, is
barb gonna say no you can’t marry this person because i don’t aproove? marrying said person
means i can’t control who my cgrandson interacts with? ok, i’ll stop now. remember these are
my opinions and thoughts. don’t like? don’t read. simple as that. I may not be dating kerri
anymore but i still have to wonder. with all that said, unless i get anymore on this matter.
i’ll officially consider this one a closed deal.
I’ll post at a later point in time.