QLD Legal Aid Representation for Uncooperative Mothers?

That's great they got to talk for even 2 minutes as it is a big leap from where you were before. Give the little fella time to adjust to getting calls from Dad asit is likely he isn't used to talking on the phone for long and there is a good chance Mum is leaning over his shoulder making him more uncomfortable. Mine started like that and within a month it was 15 minute calls regularly as they get used to that type of communication.

I wouldn't bother asking for longer because I doubt the Judge will mandate he has talk for a certain time rather I would just get Dad to make the calls as fun and light hearted as possible so the little fella enjoys and looks forward to the calls. The great thing is that within a few months when the next mention is on, Dad can say how fantastic the calls are and how he feels the bond is growing again between them because of the communication which will show the Judge he is positively parenting and then request to change them to facetime which changes everything for the better.

Always focus on the positive not the negative. It is amazing if you focus on simply trying to add 1 extra minute a week to the call how quickly it will build up.

Cheers

Yes, I think an order for FaceTime is probably going to be more effective than mandating the length of the call. Kids that young just aren't good at phone calls (like I'm 32 and I hate phone calls), and you don't want him to stay on the phone just because he has to, that will just make it into a chore.

But if it's FaceTime, kiddo gets the visual stimulation that really works for kids in that age bracket. Dad can read a book to kiddo or let him pick what colours dad uses for colouring in, or they can play a game together. Lots of options.

Like Cairnsdad, we also had our orders changed so the parent who has the child in their care initiates the phone call to the other parent. It avoid problems like mum just ignoring the call or saying 'She's in the bath'. Works a lot better for us.

Mm, I wouldn't bother filing a contravention order application for this. Sure, mum is meant to disclose doctor's appointments, but what would you do if there was no Court to run to every time mum did something wrong?

Think like a parent, not an adversary in Family Court proceedings. Don't focus on what you think is causing a problem, focus on solving the problem itself.

The problem isn't that mum isn't telling you when kiddo's appointment is.

The problem is that kiddo has a doctor's appointment coming up and you don't know when it is.

So how do you solve that? Call the doctor, ask when that appointment is taking place.

Your partner is a parent, too. Why does he need mum to keep his schedule for him?

By all means, include all of this in your affidavit if you wish, but the Court won't see it as a big problem, particularly if it's one that you can basically solve yourselves.

Wouldn't one of the doctors referred the child to the speech pathologist? Round about way to get info, but thinking of AlllForHer's advice, maybe contact the doctors you do know to ask if they provided a referral to a speech pathologist for the child, and maybe they could give you a copy of the referral or at least tell you who it was.

Realistically, yes, you could file an application for contravention orders.

But as with any legal proceedings, you should weigh up the risks and benefits.

Risk: Your application may not succeed. Let’s say Mum doesn’t tell you when the appointment is. Is there an explicit order that states she’s meant to tell you when a doctor’s appointment is? Does that order provide time frames? There’s a lot of variables that may provide perfectly reasonable explanations as to why she hasn’t told you when the appointment is, which could lead to the application being dismissed.

Risk: If the application is unsuccessful, you may wind up with a costs order against you.

Risk: More money spent on lawyers, more time in Court, more damage to the co-parenting relationship.

Risk: Running concurrent contravention proceedings over what is basically a minor issue may demonstrate a high level of conflict between the parties in your parenting orders proceedings, and the higher the conflict, the less likely the Court is to facilitate a genuine shared care arrangement.

Benefit: If the application does succeed, what are the likely outcomes? It’s a minor contravention, so maybe a 12-month bond at best, or the order might be removed all together in line with the Court’s obligation to try and make orders that minimise future litigation.

So, I’ll let you decide what all of the above means, but you should understand that the point of having parenting orders isn’t to punish a parent for poor parenting choices, it’s to protect the child’s right to have a relationship with both parents. There are minor contraventions that don’t realistically violate this right in any meaningful sense, and there are major contraventions that do - like one parent stopping the child from seeing the other despite having Court orders.

As for what Mum is saying about paternal grandmother, a) there’s no way to prove it (because you’re right, a four-year-old is not a reliable witness) and b) even if you could, no orders of any description can force a person to act like a normal person - Mum will just come up with more creative ways to influence the child to not want to see grandma.

So, rather than expecting the orders to change Mum’s attitude, Dad needs to find smarter was to minimise Mum’s influence. When the child says ‘Mummy doesn’t like grandma,’ you say ‘Doesn’t she? That’s a shame because we think grandma is awesome! She bakes the best cookies in the world and she loves you so much!’

The child needs at least one of the households to rise above the bickering and do what’s actually best for him, and if mum’s not going to step up to the plate, then it has to be Dad. Parenting first, orders second.