QLD Is Family Court Orders Restricted to Mother and Father Only?

[Private Please]

A quick one...

Can family court orders regarding child access arrangements contain a clause that restricts the care of the child to only the mother or the father? i.e Is an immediate family member caring for the child while the main carer is away for work going against the court order?

 

[AllForHer]

Technically, the Court can make such an order if deemed to be in the best interests of the child, but it never actually has because it has never determined that such an order is in any child's best interests. Children have a right, after all, to have a meaningful relationship with people other than just the parents, including siblings, grandparents and step-parents, etc.

Likewise, the Court has consistently held that unless a particular individual poses a risk of harm to the child in question, then orders restricting who the child spends time with while in the care of either parent is an act of 'micro-management' which interferes with the 'day-to-day' decisions about the child's care, welfare and development for which each parent is solely responsible when the child is in their care.

So, is an immediate family member caring for the child while the primary carer is at work considered a contravention of the order? Not unless there is an order that explicitly restricts the child from being alone in the care of that family member - e.g. 'That the parents are restrained by injunction from allowing the child X to be left unsupervised in the care of Mrs A'.

 

[AllForHer]

Putting two and two together, I'm guessing your ex has gone to work and left the kids with one of his/her family members, and you're seeking their recovery because you're displeased about that?

 

[Private Please]

Putting two and two together, I'm guessing your ex has gone to work and left the kids with one of his/her family members, and you're seeking their recovery because you're displeased about that?

Sort of Not me though, I'm not one of the parents. I'm now in the middle of an ugly situation that I'm trying to get my head around.

A family incident has prompted me to become involved in a situation that involves the actions of a father violating a court order, his defence when trying to get me to understand his actions was that the court order states that the child must be in the care of the mother or the father only. As the child was being cared for by the grandmother, the father took this as his opening to take the child without prior knowledge or consent of the mother.

 

[AllForHer]

I'll just respond to your questions in this thread from now on, rather than this one and the other.

So, as I said, in the absence of restrictive orders against the grandmother caring for the kids, then the mother is at liberty to leave the children in the care of whomever she so chooses because who babysits the kids is considered a day-to-day decision, meaning she does not need to consult with the father about it. Occasionally, orders are made for parents to offer the first opportunity to care for the child to the other parent if they are unable to do so, but even then, it's a largely unenforceable order because there's no real threshold for what constitutes an 'inability' to care for the kids.

In short, who the kids spend time with during their time with her is a decision for her to make.

By the father's logic, the kids shouldn't even be going to school without their parents, should they? I assure you the Court takes a far more reasonable approach than the father appears to be.

 

[AllForHer]

And, even if the order meant what the father thinks it does, he has not followed the proper avenues to have this supposed contravention addressed, but instead contravened the orders himself.

One parent contravening the orders doesn't grant the other freedom to do the same. If he felt a contravention had taken place, the correct way to deal with it is to file a contravention order with the Court.

 

[Private Please]

Thank you. Yep as I thought. I really ap

I'll just respond to your questions in this thread from now on, rather than this one and the other.

So, as I said, in the absence of restrictive orders against the grandmother caring for the kids, then the mother is at liberty to leave the children in the care of whomever she so chooses because who babysits the kids is considered a day-to-day decision, meaning she does not need to consult with the father about it. Occasionally, orders are made for parents to offer the first opportunity to care for the child to the other parent if they are unable to do so, but even then, it's a largely unenforceable order because there's no real threshold for what constitutes an 'inability' to care for the kids.

In short, who the kids spend time with during their time with her is a decision for her to make.

By the father's logic, the kids shouldn't even be going to school without their parents, should they? I assure you the Court takes a far more reasonable approach than the father appears to be.

Thank you, I was baffled by his statement. I couldn't see how this could be a reality. There are certainly no restrictive orders against any of the family, every other member of both families have absolutely no issues. We all share the same view of the father's lack of responsible parenting. The patience the mother has shown is admirable, I'm not sure I would have lasted the distance she has.

 

[Private Please]

And, even if the order meant what the father thinks it does, he has not followed the proper avenues to have this supposed contravention addressed, but instead contravened the orders himself.

One parent contravening the orders doesn't grant the other freedom to do the same. If he felt a contravention had taken place, the correct way to deal with it is to file a contravention order with the Court.

Thank you, I really appreciate you taking time out to respond to my questions. 100% two wrongs don't make a right.