QLD Question about living arrangements in consent orders

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now

LouiseThomas

Well-Known Member
21 March 2018
93
1
289
Hi

Orders state that when the child is in our care, we are not to be living with anyone else unless we get the others consent.

Does this mean my ex husband is not allowed to move in his current gf?

Interested in opinions. We never clarified the meaning of this it was suggested by a solicitor long time ago.

Thanks in advance
 

AllForHer

Well-Known Member
23 July 2014
3,664
684
2,894
At a guess, I would say this order was made by consent?
 

LouiseThomas

Well-Known Member
21 March 2018
93
1
289
Yes it was. This was very early on in post separation days.

My issue at the time was this order would prevent him from having his latest fling living with him and confusing my son.

Legally, does this order prevent him from living in a defacto relationship?
 

AllForHer

Well-Known Member
23 July 2014
3,664
684
2,894
Yeah, so, the Court wouldn't make such an order. There's an international convenant to which Australia is a signatory, which grants people the right to freedom of movement, meaning people can live where and with whom they choose.

If you withheld because dad exercised this right, and dad filed a contravention order application, there's a pretty good chance the Court would just discharge that order so that dad could live with whoever he wanted and still see his kid.

My advice? Don't be stupid. If you use such petty reasons to stop the kid seeing his dad, you may end up losing custody all together. It's not an uncommon outcome.
 

LouiseThomas

Well-Known Member
21 March 2018
93
1
289
They were consent orders that were stamped by the courts - so does that mean the court has a different view of this order?
 

AllForHer

Well-Known Member
23 July 2014
3,664
684
2,894
Even in contravention proceedings for parenting orders, the Court is still obligated by law to hold the children's best interests as paramount, so if an order that the parents have agreed to is only serving to create unnecessary conflict between the parents and bring them back to litigation as a consequence of that, the order they've allegedly contravened probably isn't an order that genuinely reflects the best interests of the child, is it?

The Family Court is not in the business of punishing parents. It aims to alleviate problems, not encourage them.
 

LouiseThomas

Well-Known Member
21 March 2018
93
1
289
Okay that is interesting thank you.

There is an order that says that when the child is with him he has the responsibility of day to day decisions etc. I think that's a standard order so would he be able to argue (hypothetically), that this order gives him day to day responsibility and decision making which therefore means he doesn't have to give me details on activities done with my son, who is staying there when my son is there etc?
 

AllForHer

Well-Known Member
23 July 2014
3,664
684
2,894
That's exactly what such an order does.
 

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
5,153
721
2,894
Look you're on a hiding to nothing... Let me give you an example..
We had orders - no relocation beyond 50km of Canberra. Ex moved to Batemans Bay - 140km away. I did not agree... She made arrangements so that my time with the kids didn't change all that much... I saw 2 hours less of them a fortnight but she agreed for me to have 1 additional night each holidays. I was very upset because this change meant I could not easily attend school stuff like parent teacher nights etc etc...

Solicitor told me that I'm wasting my time taking this to court because the fact is the amount of time I'm having with the kids hasn't changed all that much..