Court orders re communication between parents

[GlassHalfFull]

Hi, just wanted to clarify with the brains trust about how to interpret my court orders. The orders say:

"That for the purpose of communication between the parents matters regarding long term welfare issues pertaining to the children the parties shall utilise email and in the case of an emergency including but not limited to late changeovers, variations of time and urgent medical issues, text message shall be utilised."

My question is this... Is this enforceable? I mean, if text message is used to communicate about anything other than urgent issues, is it a breach of the orders? Or are these orders prescribing what is expected, but that if we engage in text messaging about other things, it is our own choice to do so? The reason I ask is that usually we do follow the orders as per above, but sometimes disagreements about things like variations of time spill over into a longer discussion. Despite the fact that it is never nasty or aggressive, my ex uses this to accuse me of 'harrassment' and 'breaching the orders' despite the fact that she is engaging in it too. In the latest instance, despite our court orders saying that we are both entitled to two video calls per week and that the caller is to nominate the date and time (if no agreement), she ignored my text messages over the course of two days and (IMO) lied about why she wasn't responding.

It's obvious that she is just game-playing and trying to paint a narrative so that she can continue to be the victim, but is this actually something that could be considered a breach? My understanding of the orders about communication above is that it is difficult to consider them enforceable in the sense that it doesn't say that we cannot communicate via any given method about any other matters not specified, and the wording could be clearer if it were intended to restrict communication. I mean, what method should we use if we want to talk about the weather? Is this prohibited?

For the record, I get it pragmatically speaking. Ultimately if she considers it harassment, however ridiculous that is, I need to respect it and say no more, for self-preservation if nothing else. But she regularly uses the accusation of harassment to stifle any discussion about her wrongdoing or not putting the children's interests first. Regardless of the communication method, am I entitled to raise issues or can she effectively stop me (short of further legal action)?

 

[Tim W]

My question is this... Is this enforceable?

If that's what the Order says, then yes.

I mean, if text message is used to communicate about anything other than urgent issues, is it a breach of the orders?

Can be. Much depends on the facts and circumstances, and the quality of the available evidence.

Or are these orders prescribing what is expected, but that if we engage in text messaging about other things, it is our own choice to do so?

No. They are telling you what you're going to do.
If that's what the Order actually says, then it's compulsory.
Further, outside of the ifs and buts provided for in the Order, it's not negotiable,
nor a matter of your choice or convenience.
That's why it's called Order.

 

[GlassHalfFull]

If that's what the Order says, then yes.Can be. Much depends on the facts and circumstances, and the quality of the available evidence.No. They are telling you what you're going to do.
If that's what the Order actually says, then it's compulsory.
Further, outside of the ifs and buts provided for in the Order, it's not negotiable,
nor a matter of your choice or convenience.
That's why it's called Order.

Right, but orders are often subject to interpretation, and that's where the issue is for me. Because as I mentioned, if the orders state what communication method should be used for x y and z, does that mean that you are prohibited from communicating about a, b and c via any method? Or are a, b and c simply not covered by the order unless specified? Because I don't see how an order that only includes a few specific examples of which method should be used for which situation can effectively dictate how all communication should or should not occur when it falls outside of these examples. It simply doesn't say that in the orders, and while some may assume or interpret it that way (particularly when it suits their purpose), it isn't clear to me that it is a breach to communicate about other things that aren't covered in the orders.

In my experience, even when signed off by a judge, sometimes orders are badly written and IMO unenforceable because they are too inconsistent or vague or interpretable.