Okay, I am a little perplexed by the rhyme and reason here.
In the one hand, you've cited concern about the number of bruises and marks on the child and you've suggested this may be the result of possible neglect out of intoxication on the mother's part.
However, in the other hand, you're seeking 50/50 care, not primary residency.
Ordinarily, if a parent is genuinely concerned for the child's safety, they seek primary residency, and they use the tools available to them (for example, random drug and alcohol tests) to mount a case in support of such.
Seeking 50/50, however, implies that you don't fear for the child's safety because obviously, if you did, you'd be seeking to minimise mum's time with the child, rather than share time equally.
So, then I'm inclined to ask, what's the point of the drug and alcohol testing?
If she returns positive results for drug or alcohol consumption, what will it prove in terms of supporting your argument in favour of a 50/50 care arrangement?
If she returns a negative result, will that put your concerns about the mother's drug or alcohol consumption to rest?
Or are you intending on seeking a final order restraining either parent from drug or alcohol consumption entirely while the child is in their care?
Migz, I've been following your case with interest and I wholly support your cause, but in my experience, a lot of parents abandon reason in favour of unrealistic expectations when it comes to parenting proceedings, and I am just concerned that perhaps that's what is happening here. If the Court actually went ahead and held that having a few drinks, taking recreational drugs or keeping stubby coolers in the car made for bad parents, there'd be an awful lot of kids in foster care, no?
In the one hand, you've cited concern about the number of bruises and marks on the child and you've suggested this may be the result of possible neglect out of intoxication on the mother's part.
However, in the other hand, you're seeking 50/50 care, not primary residency.
Ordinarily, if a parent is genuinely concerned for the child's safety, they seek primary residency, and they use the tools available to them (for example, random drug and alcohol tests) to mount a case in support of such.
Seeking 50/50, however, implies that you don't fear for the child's safety because obviously, if you did, you'd be seeking to minimise mum's time with the child, rather than share time equally.
So, then I'm inclined to ask, what's the point of the drug and alcohol testing?
If she returns positive results for drug or alcohol consumption, what will it prove in terms of supporting your argument in favour of a 50/50 care arrangement?
If she returns a negative result, will that put your concerns about the mother's drug or alcohol consumption to rest?
Or are you intending on seeking a final order restraining either parent from drug or alcohol consumption entirely while the child is in their care?
Migz, I've been following your case with interest and I wholly support your cause, but in my experience, a lot of parents abandon reason in favour of unrealistic expectations when it comes to parenting proceedings, and I am just concerned that perhaps that's what is happening here. If the Court actually went ahead and held that having a few drinks, taking recreational drugs or keeping stubby coolers in the car made for bad parents, there'd be an awful lot of kids in foster care, no?
