WA Consent Orders lack clarity

[Mitzy]

Yesterday in court an agreement was reached for supervised visits of my son with his mother. I have never prevented or got in the way of her seeing him. Drug use by her is the problem and she surrendered him to me full time because she said she couldn't keep him safe. With the agreement, the ICL took minutes and a Consent Order was agreed on. When the ICL spoke to me she said the mother and Grandmother (who both use drugs, the Grandmother IV) would have to submit a clean drug test before each 3 hour visit. We agreed on 2 visits per week, plus Skype.
However, when I read the draft of the Consent Order, it says that visits can commence following her and Grandmother have to get supervised urinalysis. The ICL said to me this would be before every visit. But that isn't clear in the Consent Order. It simply says,
"Spends time with mother supervised by the Grandmother following the mother and Grandmother supplying results of a supervised drug urinalysis that is clean for illicit drugs, with the mothers to be clean of illicit drugs except cannabis".
But that isn't saying every visit! Does this mean every visit, or just before the initial visit??
If this appears to mean just before the initial visit, how do I get this clarified and changed? Draft Consent Orders are sitting on the Comcourt Portal. I did email the ICL and asked her to clarify, but she never answers any queries - is anyone able to advise me with this? I just don't know how to get this Order more clear than it is.

 

[sammy01]

Or you are over thinking it.
Do you think the intention was for them to be proven clean before each visit? If yes then sweet.
Do you have a solicitor? if yes ask them.

the plural 'results' is problematic. It is plural because there are two people BUT the plural also indicates prior to each visit.

Mate, I did a quick search. Heavy users have stuff in their urine for weeks. They need to go 4 weeks clean before they have a chance. Stress less, they're not gonna do that, they are drug addicts.

 

[Mitzy]

Thanks mate. You're thinking exactly the same way...that's what's confusing me...the way the ICL has written the paragraph..
It was all a bit bazaar really. The ICL quickly running between me and the ex, outside the courtroom, no privacy...just rushed. I shouldn't have signed it till I'd thought about it properly but must admit, I felt pressured. My lawyer withdrew "conflict of interest" because she started feeling sorry for the ex(which is a joke), and the ex is self-representing, so yesterday neither of us had a lawyer. I couldn't get Duty Lawyer because the ex has seen everyDuty Lawyer in the court and none of them can help me....

the ICL also hasn't specified who can be at these visits either. I don't want her Mother's boyfriend there - she shouldn't be there. They are both IV meth users....I don't really want my little boy near that. It's because his mother kept dragging him about, and some idiot threatening to blow "clouds" in his face, that he's with me. She just can't stop and he's not safe with her. IDK if her drug mates did hurt him but she surrendered him the day after the threat and he was sick mate....
Thanks for replying. I really appreciate it. Son is only 3 1/2 ... I'd prefer it if they'd just leave it alone.

 

[sammy01]

Oh man, what are you worrying about. She wont pass the drug test...
But you're entitled to assume she needs to be screened before each visit. That is how I read it. Not a lawyer, but I'm an English teacher, for what that is worth and orders should be in plain enough English for the average punter to be able to comprehend.

A bit of common sense also applies, one clean test does not mean she didn't hit the ice pipe the night after the test, hence constant screening needed to protect the child's wellbeing. But she wont pass the test is where I'm laying my money if I was a betting man.