QLD Can a court make an order for supervised contact if there are pending criminal dvo charges

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

Thenarcisistsprey

Well-Known Member
15 October 2018
22
0
121
Im trying to help a friend with his family court stuff and Im wondering if anyone can tell me if the family court can make an order for supervised contact when there are pending criminal charges (false allegations)? The father hasn’t seen his kids for several years and wishes to establish some form of contact (he’s more than happy to have that supervised in a contact centre) but the mother is saying no because of the pending charges. He has been trying to transfer the criminal charges to a larger court as there are no trial dates this year at the court where it’s being heard and this matter has been going on and delayed for 18 months.
 

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
5,154
721
2,894
He can apply to court. He doesn't have to have supervision unless the court determines he is a risk. Are the criminal charges relating to the kids or their mum? if not and if there isn't an established history of him abusing the kids, then supervision(arguably) is not neccessary.
 

Thenarcisistsprey

Well-Known Member
15 October 2018
22
0
121
His matter has been in the family court for the past year. Other side are saying no to any contact even supervised. There is one pending criminal charge of choking his ex partner which he denies. He has no history of any other violence ever and no criminal history. She didn’t file charges on that until almost a year later and has no evidence. It looks like she did that because she wants to take their kids overseas to live and he won’t agree to it
 

GlassHalfFull

Well-Known Member
28 August 2018
544
51
2,289
One thing I would add is that I've regularly heard it claimed that any kind of DV (even just verbal aggression like yelling in an argument) against a mother is automatically violence against the children too, so it won't take much to spin the narrative that supervision is the way to go. Even if the children weren't directly witness to it or particularly affected by it. Anti DV campaigners, while mostly well intentioned, effectively make the definition of DV so broad that it ends up being silly and meaningless, and drives a wedge between parents at a time when emotions run hot, and and forces them into the family law system when it's likely that nobody will end up 'winning', least of all the children. I think that this is often sorely lacking from the usual conversation on DV. And that's not to say that I would lump all DV into that category, because obviously there are serious DV crimes that need to be taken seriously. I just think that when having an argument and beating your partner is all effectively the same 'crime' of DV, the nuance and meaning of it is absolutely destroyed in the process.

My point here is that while there may have been no crime actually committed, and that eventually the criminal court may find that to be the case, the fact that a parent can put the accused through the wringer with the oft assumption that accusations of DV = supervised contact until further notice, it becomes a very convenient and potent weapon to use to control access to children.