QLD Child abuse, yes or no?

[Davidfc007]

Hello,

I am in applicant in a matter that is before the Family Court of Australia. I have a simple question.

Is it an act of child abuse by a parent:

• if a child (11 year old) is withheld (did not see or speak) by one parent from having a connection the other parent
• in contravention of a court order between April 2018 and September 2018
• no applications were made to the court to vary or discharge the court order

Facts before the court:

1. There was a court order in place that had my access to the child “5 nights per fortnight” during school and 50% during school holidays
2. the respondent did not apply to the court to change or discharge the order during the time April 2018 to September 2018
3. the respondent did not reply to any communications from me during this time, not one email or text message was respondent to
4. The QPS conducted a welfare check on the child in May 2018 at my request
5. There were no other legal reasons for the child to not be with her father
6. The mother has not put one word and/or any evidence on any affidavits in this matter about her justification to withhold the child during that period
7. The court has evidence from the Department of Education (Queensland State) of the child being absent from school on days the father was ordered to pick up the child
8. There is a previous matter in which I was also the applicant and the child was withheld from me between April 2015 and December 2015 contrary to a parental plan agreed by both parents, that matter was settle by consent by order (the same order that was contravened by the mother between April 2018 and September 2018)
9. In 2016, a court order family consultant made the following recommendation about the respondent in a family report “That the RESPONDENT be required to address psychologically, the need to differentiate her own experiences from those of CHILD and the importance of protecting CHILD from the ongoing dispute.”
10. There is no evidence before the court the respondent sort help since that recommendation

I interpret Section 4(1) (c) that a child is abused if it subjected to family violence.

I interpret Section 4AB (1) that a child is subjected to family violence when a person that controls a member of the person’s family, in my case, the mother withholds the child from seeing or speaking with her father.

I interpret Section 4AB (2) (i) that to withhold a child from seeing her father between April 2018 and September 2018 the mother was “preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family”.

Child abuse? I think it significant child abuse that has the potential to have a massive impact on the child's health.

 

[Atticus]

Is it an act of child abuse by a parent:

• if a child (11 year old) is withheld (did not see or speak) by one parent from having a connection the other parent
• in contravention of a court order between April 2018 and September 2018

I interpret Section 4(1) (c) that a child is abused if it subjected to family violence.

I interpret Section 4AB (1) that a child is subjected to family violence when a person that controls a member of the person’s family, in my case, the mother withholds the child from seeing or speaking with her father.

I interpret Section 4AB (2) (i) that to withhold a child from seeing her father between April 2018 and September 2018 the mother was “preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family”.

Child abuse? I think it significant child abuse that has the potential to have a massive impact on the child's health

Short answer is depends on whether the judge considers it to be or not...Assuming the application is a contravention of orders, a finding of child abuse isn't necessary anyway to have a favourable outcome, ie, contravention without reasonable excuse..

Child abuse in the context of 4AB2(i) extrapolated to withholding a child from a parent has been tested in court. Most recently in Jan 2018..... Basically the judge found that such behaviour only becomes family violence where the quality of that conduct meets the description in s 4AB1) & for such conduct to be family violence, it would be necessary to determine that the undermining of the relationship was behaviour that was engaged in that coerced or controlled either the child or the father....The judge then went into the meaning of control & coerce..

You can read the case here... The most relevant part beginning at paragraph 117 http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2018/17.html?context=1;query=4AB;mask_path=au/cases/cth/FamCA

 

[sammy01]

oh wow, that is a really good case to show that being stupid is a bad idea. BOTH parents in that case were stupid. Mum stopped the kid seeing dad, but dad expected the judge to give dad primary care - effectively turning the kid's life upside down...

Is it abuse? in my world YES. Is mum gonna go to jail for it? NOPE.
So don't be stupid - don't make your case about proving mum is abusive. Make your case about how important it is for the kid to spend time with dad.

 

[Davidfc007]

oh wow, that is a really good case to show that being stupid is a bad idea. BOTH parents in that case were stupid. Mum stopped the kid seeing dad, but dad expected the judge to give dad primary care - effectively turning the kid's life upside down...

Is it abuse? in my world YES. Is mum gonna go to jail for it? NOPE.
So don't be stupid - don't make your case about proving mum is abusive. Make your case about how important it is for the kid to spend time with dad.

I think your response is the very reason the family court is broken. You are talking about abuse to a child as defined by the law, a helpless 11-year-old being withheld from a willing parent while a federal court order is in place. The court is broken because it doesn't apply the law when there are clear cases of abuse. It doesn't matter if you are a father or mother, you never ever subject your own child to abuse, under any circumstance, and if you do, the full extent of the law should be thrown at you, they are defenceless kids!


For the record, not all single parent are looking to put the other parent in jail, in my case I have never asked by application or order that the child see significantly less time with the other parent, I am just trying to stop the child from being abused, and if being stupid means I am trying to protect my child, then guilty as charged, thank you sammy01.

 

[Davidfc007]

The family court reminds me of the christian church, an organisation that was responsible with caring for children, but the truth turned out the church was aware "their own" were sexually abusing those children and they tried to hide it by being respondent, judge and jury.

The christian church is the world's biggest organised entity that aided child molesters and failed to seek prosecution for children subjected to child abuse.

The family court is no different:

• Judges and its officers of the court have immunity like confessions to priests
• Judges and its officers of the court have autonomy from the public that do not use their services (people outside the family court have no idea how broken it really is, like people outside the church had no idea how broken it was)
• people that have clearly subjected children to abuse are not prosecuted to the full extent of the law by judges and officers of the court
• there is significant evidence these organisations have continually failed in their moral and/or legal obligation to protect children from abuse.

Child abuse as defined by the law does not say its ok if you are a mother, it does not say its ok to abuse a child if you are a father, it does not say its ok to abuse a child if you hold a position of trust in the community, it just states its abuse if it meets it's definition and the abuse will not stop unless the law is used to stop it.

 

[sammy01]

hey old mate. Calm down... You came here looking for advice then attacked me for giving it..
So read closely.
is it abuse? I said YES. It is in my world. And in my world, anyone who abuses a kid should be jailed. Do you disagree? do you think child abuse should be accepted? Oh but it is ok when it is mum? hell no. But that is my world and I'm not a judge, just a guy on a keyboard.

But you need to think about how best to go about this to get the best result. The case Atticus provided highlights that you'll do better in court if you make your case about resuming access and that it is important that the kid spends time with you. Feel free to make your case about how mum is abusive but I think you will not do so well in court than if you made your case about your relationship with the kid.