QLD Family Law Act question

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

LouiseThomas

Well-Known Member
21 March 2018
93
1
289
Hi

My ex has directed me to legislation in the family law act that states:

65DAE No need to consult on issues that are not major long-term

issues

(1) If a child is spending time with a person at a particular time under a

parenting order, the order is taken not to require the person to

consult a person who:

(a) has parental responsibility for the child; or

(b) shares parental responsibility for the child with another

person; about decisions that are made in relation to the child during that

time on issues that are not major-long term issues.

Note: This will mean that the person with whom the child is spending time

will usually not need to consult on decisions about such things as what

the child eats



I understand this, however in our orders he is to advise me of where he is taking child and what they will be doing etc during his time. I read the order myself but then noted this part at the end which says:

(2) Subsection (1) applies subject to any provision to the contrary
made by a parenting order.


Can someone please clarify? Does this mean that the above law does not apply if it's written in consent orders?

Thanks again for clarifying recent issues.
 

thatbloke

Well-Known Member
5 February 2018
335
42
714
Earth
WHy do you even need to know? I am guessing these were consent orders? How would you like it is you had to tell another person everywhere you went with your own kid? Just move on
 

Rod

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
27 May 2014
7,726
1,056
2,894
www.hutchinsonlegal.com.au
Can someone please clarify? Does this mean that the above law does not apply if it's written in consent orders?

Consent orders will override the legislative provision 65DAE(1) as per 65DAE(2).

The real question is whether the relevant consent order will be enforced if file you a contravention. I suspect not, and you open up the possibility other orders will be re-examined by your ex.

Unless there is some kind of risk to the kids by you not knowing where they are and what they are doing, then you have no valid reason to insist on this information being provided to you.
 

LouiseThomas

Well-Known Member
21 March 2018
93
1
289
Thanks Rod. That's I guess what I was curious about. If I breached (which I won't), it seems it will just allow the orders to be re-examined. I am not interested in wasting $$$$ on something like this but was just confused by it all regarding what is enforceable or not.
 

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
5,152
720
2,894
Do you have to advise him of what you do with the kid? where you go? so how is that fair...

I gotta tell you, I'm pulling my hair out about the insanity of these orders. I can't imagine what your ex must be going through...
So let me read between the lines here... Forgive me if i'm in the wrong.. You would only let him see the kid if he agreed that he would tell you where he was, who he lived with, where he was going, who he was going with, if he left the child for any length of time he needed to tell you that too... And he signed it. JUST SO HE COULD SEE HIS KID. And his solicitor told him to because it was cheaper and easier than going to court... He just wants to see his kid.

But let me try and help you see how crazy this is...

Now in your orders does it say that in the event that he does not comply you have any rights? So for example, at one point we had orders that said that my time with the children would be 'suspended' if I consumed excessive amounts of alcohol. So in my example - IF the ex could establish that I was drunk when I had the kids she could stop me seeing them. Even then my orders were too vague, it didn't say how long my time would be suspended for AND how it was to be determined that I was drunk... But it was something she wanted put in the orders and I agreed. WHY? because it is completely unenforceable and it meant I got to see my kids.

You have a whole lot of crazy stuff in the orders that won't hold up in court. First thing a magistrate will do is tear you to shreds. Magistrate will want to know why you feel entitled to so much information about what dad does... Clearly, you don't have the same responsibility to inform dad of where you guys go every time you leave the house? true...

So you have very limited options available to you... If you wanted you could spend $$ on solicitors and take it to court because he isn't complying with the orders.. WASTE OF TIME. Or learn to live with it...

Now you have said in one of your THREE - count them THREE different threads about this petty stuff that you want to avoid conflict AND you kinda suggest he is the cause of the conflict. You are spinning me out. Seriously, why should he have to tell you that he is going to the park? Does he have to tell you the route that is going to be travelled? it is madness.... Madness I tell ya.

Final thought- If you want to reduce the amount of conflict between you and dad, why not trying to let dad have time with his own child.... HIS OWN CHILD For goodness sake - without having to spend his time telling you what he is doing?
Final question for you.. When the kid is with dad and dad tells you that he is taking the kid to the park. Why do you need to know? And if all dad has to do is advise you, well who cares... It doesn't say that dad has to ask permission to take the kid to the park true? so what is the point?
 

LouiseThomas

Well-Known Member
21 March 2018
93
1
289
I understand it sounds crazy but my main reason for questions is to understand why orders were passed through courts in first place. I was trying to make sense of it all and it has been explained civilly to me by other members. I’m coming from a place of finding information to get a clearer understanding.
 

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
5,152
720
2,894
Hey I know my last post seems like I'm attacking and I kinda am... I also want you to know that it is done with respect... WHY? Well if you were to tell us that you're not going to agree for the kid to see dad because of these orders I'd be suggesting that is really poor form.. But you're not. GOOD.

So lets go through the process..
You guys agree. SWEET. Court will stamp orders. The only time they wont is if they see risk of harm. So if there was an order by way of example that states that you guys agree to have a daughter circumcised as is the custom in some parts of the world... The courts in Australia would not allow it. If you agreed for a daughter to marry someone at the age of 12 - again because of a custom from another country - the courts would not agree and would not stamp the orders... BUT your orders have nothing in them that is detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the kids, so the courts will stamp it...

Your problem is with enforcement. Refusing access to dad because of this is a bad idea... If you did that and he took it to court, you could be expected to be asked to pay his legal bills (costs) for example and it is most likely the orders will be removed so they no longer apply.

If however, you had grounds to have concern for the safety of the child then you could withhold - but you would need to be able to prove to a magistrate that you had good grounds and based on what you've written, you don't..
 

LouiseThomas

Well-Known Member
21 March 2018
93
1
289
Thanks Sammy, that was exactly why I kept asking what I guess is the same question in different ways.

I am thinking perhaps he did just sign knowing that these specific orders were not enforceable? I have never withheld child due to him not complying with these orders, I have merely only questioned him at times and from his end he is able to give me answers but I wanted to get my own answers as well.

I have friend who recently went through separation and she put in similar things into her orders. She was told by solicitor that was she asked for was common (she has similar - no one else but father is to supervise child etc). It is conflicting information you are given and I have never engaged a solicitor since to get clarification, huge waste of money that I don't have.
 

AllForHer

Well-Known Member
23 July 2014
3,664
684
2,894
Yes, a lot of crazy women ask for consent orders that amount to nothing more than control, and a lot of stupid men agree to them. They never amount to anything but a lot of conflict, however, and guess who suffers the most?

The kids.

I'm glad you have the intelligence to educate yourself, though. Many people come here just wanting to use their orders to get blood.
 

Lennon

Well-Known Member
11 September 2014
270
36
719
The consent orders are extremely controlling and apparently unnecessary. Why do you care if the court would enforce them, unless you intend on trying to enforce them?

Do you want your ex to tell you when he is going to the park? Do you want your ex to have to seek your consent to moving in with his girlfriend?