Hi,
I am new here and would appreciate it if someone could please provide me with the answers to all the below 6 questions in relation to an existing family law matter.
This post/question follows on from my previous post about filing divorce papers; so any background information not provided here will (hopefully) exist there.
Background.
a) Mother/alleged-aggrieved currently using family violence intervention order to prevent child from having a relationship with father; but since child was added to the interim (orders a few months ago, based upon generalized/speculative grounds “I’m scared of him getting close to our daughter”) father can't easily negotiate access as this is completely dependent upon the mother’s willingness to enter into discussions about child - which is the only basis the current interim orders allow father and mother to discuss child care arrangements.
b) No Federal Circuit Court orders currently exist but father is attempting to implement them; hence this post.
c) Mediation/negotiation with (mother via) the most common *agency (RA) for both this task and the delivery of a 60I certificate has failed for several reasons; including the fact that the mother is stalling (7 months and nothing has happened) and the agency is completely supportive of her circumstances (despite the fact that the child has only seen her father once since birth and she is now 6 months old) and as such they continue to tell father the matter has progressed but we are yet to set a date for negotiations because of the waiting list. Advising this agency that they can/should issue a FDR certificate upon the basis of [s60I (8)] the mother not attending has gone nowhere, as has complaining about them.
d) Arrangements with an alternative agency that was suitably qualified to issues a FDR certificate have been a bit quicker (mother completed intake within 3 weeks) but it too now appears to be stalling; and that maybe because the mother has a women’s legal services and/or similar type of intermittent legal assistance on board.
e) Mother provided 1 contact session (for 1 hour) early this year (bear in mind father must travel interstate for all/any contact sessions) since child was born and converted it into a supervised session by staying, but has not provided the father with another and she refuses to meaningfully discuss with the father any more contact/care arrangements for the child.
f) Father’s repeated written requests for medical and/or other related papers in relation to the child have gone nowhere. This may be because the mother really provided no meaningful grounds to amend the existing IVO interim orders to have the child added.
g) The mother’s IVO application is a mess and full of inconsistent claims and since the father has advised he wishes to defend and looks forward to the trial, the matter has been adjourned for ~7 months.
h) Since father lives in QLD and mother in Victoria, the father wants to file his FCC initiating action (and possibly risk notice) in QLD for all the obvious reasons; including those that makes him the applicant so that then (save for any future contact with the child) he only has to travel interstate for the mother’s IVO matter.
i) The status quo is effectively this; mother effectively prevents relationship between father/daughter by way of; (1) coercing agencies that are qualified to issue a FDR certificate into stalling (including by way of referencing her highly stigmatic/inconsistent FIVO claims); (2) quoting the COVID19 regulations/concerns; (3) a set of highly questionable, stigmatic, and untested magistrates court claims related to her protection order application; and (4) and hiding behind existing IVO interim orders related to communication about child.
j) The aforementioned delays associated with 2 separate agencies that are qualified to issue FDR certificates means that if the situation is not managed swiftly and also in a strategically acute manner (for the father) the mother (as soon as she has all her FCC papers proactively in-tact) could then easily turn around at anytime and state that the medication/negotiation process is simply too stressful for her and then (at a time when the father’s FCC papers were not as prepared; as they depend on the mediation/negotiation) the entire mediation/negotiation process goes nowhere, the relevant 60I certificates are issued that deem the process unsuitable for mediation, and that all then allows the matter to play out such that the mother files her Federal Circuit Court documents 1st in Victoria and the father is then the respondent to yet another interstate matter where the costs just skyrocket.
k) Questions 47, 48 within a Federal Circuit Court initiating application and the family law act s60i seem to make clear that there are only a few exceptions to filing an initiating action (and/or risk notice) without a FDR certificate and this post is mostly related to this and how it currently presents an obstruction to the father achieving his goal of filing 1st in the QLD FCC.
l) Currently there exists no independently provided health/other reasons from the mother and/or anyone else as to why the child can't have meaningful contact with her father.
m) Father has a very strong case but has to be very strategic/careful with his witnesses/evidence (particularly that about the mother) as the entire matter is spread out over several jurisdictions.
Questions.
1) Given that s60i(9) appears to deal with exceptions and/or circumstances where a FCC initiating action can be successfully filed without a s60I FDR certificate; is there anything within the above points (including points “e”, “f,” “i”, and “j”) that would enable the father to file his Federal Circuit Court application by way of exception and/or s60i(9); and if so how?
2) Does any of the above points amount to abuse and conduct authored by the mother that constitutes grounds for s60i(9) exception; in the very least it seems she is preventing the child from having a relationship with her father and/or failing to provide medical/health information pertinent to the child?
3) Whilst not explicitly mentioned (please see above point “m”) within the above points there is also some private written communication from inside the mother’s existing household (from a 3rd party) that suggests the environment there is not ideal for the child and/or that the mother behaves without compunction; and in consideration of this; does that in any way constitute grounds for s60i(9) and/or an exception to a FDR certificate?
4) In the event the (alleged) aggrieved ex-partner and/or mother obtains legal representation (this has not happened yet) can the father simply write to them and request contact with the daughter/child; and/or their reasons for not providing such?
5) Following on from question 4; surely a solicitor (and mother) would be obliged to ensure a child not only had meaningful relationship with her father - but also, was provided with the opportunity to establish that relationship in the very first instance. Is this presumption correct? Just to be clear; the father was not there when the child was born and he has only spent 1 hour with the child since birth as per above point “e”.
6) Given the above (mess) what is the best strategic approach to ensuring the father’s FCC initiating action (parenting orders) is successfully filed without a s60I FDR certificate as soon as possible?
Cheers,
Steve.
PS: thank you for answering my previous post/questionable promptly.
I am new here and would appreciate it if someone could please provide me with the answers to all the below 6 questions in relation to an existing family law matter.
This post/question follows on from my previous post about filing divorce papers; so any background information not provided here will (hopefully) exist there.
Background.
a) Mother/alleged-aggrieved currently using family violence intervention order to prevent child from having a relationship with father; but since child was added to the interim (orders a few months ago, based upon generalized/speculative grounds “I’m scared of him getting close to our daughter”) father can't easily negotiate access as this is completely dependent upon the mother’s willingness to enter into discussions about child - which is the only basis the current interim orders allow father and mother to discuss child care arrangements.
b) No Federal Circuit Court orders currently exist but father is attempting to implement them; hence this post.
c) Mediation/negotiation with (mother via) the most common *agency (RA) for both this task and the delivery of a 60I certificate has failed for several reasons; including the fact that the mother is stalling (7 months and nothing has happened) and the agency is completely supportive of her circumstances (despite the fact that the child has only seen her father once since birth and she is now 6 months old) and as such they continue to tell father the matter has progressed but we are yet to set a date for negotiations because of the waiting list. Advising this agency that they can/should issue a FDR certificate upon the basis of [s60I (8)] the mother not attending has gone nowhere, as has complaining about them.
d) Arrangements with an alternative agency that was suitably qualified to issues a FDR certificate have been a bit quicker (mother completed intake within 3 weeks) but it too now appears to be stalling; and that maybe because the mother has a women’s legal services and/or similar type of intermittent legal assistance on board.
e) Mother provided 1 contact session (for 1 hour) early this year (bear in mind father must travel interstate for all/any contact sessions) since child was born and converted it into a supervised session by staying, but has not provided the father with another and she refuses to meaningfully discuss with the father any more contact/care arrangements for the child.
f) Father’s repeated written requests for medical and/or other related papers in relation to the child have gone nowhere. This may be because the mother really provided no meaningful grounds to amend the existing IVO interim orders to have the child added.
g) The mother’s IVO application is a mess and full of inconsistent claims and since the father has advised he wishes to defend and looks forward to the trial, the matter has been adjourned for ~7 months.
h) Since father lives in QLD and mother in Victoria, the father wants to file his FCC initiating action (and possibly risk notice) in QLD for all the obvious reasons; including those that makes him the applicant so that then (save for any future contact with the child) he only has to travel interstate for the mother’s IVO matter.
i) The status quo is effectively this; mother effectively prevents relationship between father/daughter by way of; (1) coercing agencies that are qualified to issue a FDR certificate into stalling (including by way of referencing her highly stigmatic/inconsistent FIVO claims); (2) quoting the COVID19 regulations/concerns; (3) a set of highly questionable, stigmatic, and untested magistrates court claims related to her protection order application; and (4) and hiding behind existing IVO interim orders related to communication about child.
j) The aforementioned delays associated with 2 separate agencies that are qualified to issue FDR certificates means that if the situation is not managed swiftly and also in a strategically acute manner (for the father) the mother (as soon as she has all her FCC papers proactively in-tact) could then easily turn around at anytime and state that the medication/negotiation process is simply too stressful for her and then (at a time when the father’s FCC papers were not as prepared; as they depend on the mediation/negotiation) the entire mediation/negotiation process goes nowhere, the relevant 60I certificates are issued that deem the process unsuitable for mediation, and that all then allows the matter to play out such that the mother files her Federal Circuit Court documents 1st in Victoria and the father is then the respondent to yet another interstate matter where the costs just skyrocket.
k) Questions 47, 48 within a Federal Circuit Court initiating application and the family law act s60i seem to make clear that there are only a few exceptions to filing an initiating action (and/or risk notice) without a FDR certificate and this post is mostly related to this and how it currently presents an obstruction to the father achieving his goal of filing 1st in the QLD FCC.
l) Currently there exists no independently provided health/other reasons from the mother and/or anyone else as to why the child can't have meaningful contact with her father.
m) Father has a very strong case but has to be very strategic/careful with his witnesses/evidence (particularly that about the mother) as the entire matter is spread out over several jurisdictions.
Questions.
1) Given that s60i(9) appears to deal with exceptions and/or circumstances where a FCC initiating action can be successfully filed without a s60I FDR certificate; is there anything within the above points (including points “e”, “f,” “i”, and “j”) that would enable the father to file his Federal Circuit Court application by way of exception and/or s60i(9); and if so how?
2) Does any of the above points amount to abuse and conduct authored by the mother that constitutes grounds for s60i(9) exception; in the very least it seems she is preventing the child from having a relationship with her father and/or failing to provide medical/health information pertinent to the child?
3) Whilst not explicitly mentioned (please see above point “m”) within the above points there is also some private written communication from inside the mother’s existing household (from a 3rd party) that suggests the environment there is not ideal for the child and/or that the mother behaves without compunction; and in consideration of this; does that in any way constitute grounds for s60i(9) and/or an exception to a FDR certificate?
4) In the event the (alleged) aggrieved ex-partner and/or mother obtains legal representation (this has not happened yet) can the father simply write to them and request contact with the daughter/child; and/or their reasons for not providing such?
5) Following on from question 4; surely a solicitor (and mother) would be obliged to ensure a child not only had meaningful relationship with her father - but also, was provided with the opportunity to establish that relationship in the very first instance. Is this presumption correct? Just to be clear; the father was not there when the child was born and he has only spent 1 hour with the child since birth as per above point “e”.
6) Given the above (mess) what is the best strategic approach to ensuring the father’s FCC initiating action (parenting orders) is successfully filed without a s60I FDR certificate as soon as possible?
Cheers,
Steve.
PS: thank you for answering my previous post/questionable promptly.
