Also she has allowed me access to my child again because I have filed with the court.
NSW Family Law Mediation Not Being Followed - What to Do?
- Thread starter Darren barrett
- Start date
-
- Tags
- family law mediation
Sorry, there seems to be two threads going on here. Can I possibly request that a mod separate the posts into two threads?
Gabe Jae, state police cannot intervene in family law matters because it's not within their jurisdiction to do so. Family law is a federal matter and a civil one (not a criminal one), thus, only federal police can act and only if ordered by the court do so. I advise against excessively involving the police - it's not often welcomed by the court and it's a waste of police time and resources if there is no genuine fear for a child's safety. On top of that, there is a proper avenue to follow for contraventions of parenting orders, and state police have no part in that process. You must first attempt mediation then file an application for contravention orders if mediation fails.
As for father's/mother's rights, parents don't have any rights under the Family Law Act 1975, only children do, provided under section 60B. That right is to know, spend time and communicate with both parents and other people significant to their care on a regular basis insofar as it's in the child's best interests to do so. Those are the rights the court will uphold in family proceedings, rather than perceived "parents rights".
Can you file for sole parental responsibility? Yes, but will you get it? Unless you can prove the children are at risk of harm under the current arrangement, probably not. There's a legal presumption in the Family Law Act that both parents have equal shared parental responsibility for all major long-term decisions relating to a child's care, and that presumption can only be removed by order of the court following successful rebuttal to the presumption. Orders for sole parental responsibility are extremely difficult to get, in this day and age. Your time and money would be better spent aiming to uphold the child's rights, which is to have a meaningful relationship with both parents, not just one.
I can't say I've found the court to be biased against fathers, provided they choose not to act as though the court is biased against them. Family law judges are pretty switched on - they are very good at telling the difference between a party who is acting in the child's best interests, and a parent who is just out for vindication disguised as the child's best interests (which, as a matter of interest, is quite often the mother). Thus, it's important to be the parent that always puts the child's best interests first, even when the other parent refuses to do so. If you make effort to minimise their exposure to conflict and make effort to communicate with the mother in a reasonable fashion, the court will have to turn somewhere else to find the problem. If it's not you, it's her, if that makes sense.
Anyway, I hope this helps and apologise if I seem a bit blunt. As a demographic definitely still recovering from years and years of being treated like the 'lesser parent' in court, I try to encourage fathers not to see themselves as being the lesser parent because amendments in 2006 definitely changed that dynamic to their benefit. Especially now, fathers are being treated as fathers should be treated - as equally important. But it's just harder to establish yourself as that when you get distracted by the frustration of slow court proceedings, a refusal by police to act (only because they simply can't in a legal sense, not because they don't support fathers), and a mother who seems to be freely playing the 'superior parent' role with no retribution.
At the end of the day, the court doesn't like parents who withhold kids, and judges have no hesitation at all in telling parents exactly what's what. Just be patient and follow the right procedures.
Gabe Jae, state police cannot intervene in family law matters because it's not within their jurisdiction to do so. Family law is a federal matter and a civil one (not a criminal one), thus, only federal police can act and only if ordered by the court do so. I advise against excessively involving the police - it's not often welcomed by the court and it's a waste of police time and resources if there is no genuine fear for a child's safety. On top of that, there is a proper avenue to follow for contraventions of parenting orders, and state police have no part in that process. You must first attempt mediation then file an application for contravention orders if mediation fails.
As for father's/mother's rights, parents don't have any rights under the Family Law Act 1975, only children do, provided under section 60B. That right is to know, spend time and communicate with both parents and other people significant to their care on a regular basis insofar as it's in the child's best interests to do so. Those are the rights the court will uphold in family proceedings, rather than perceived "parents rights".
Can you file for sole parental responsibility? Yes, but will you get it? Unless you can prove the children are at risk of harm under the current arrangement, probably not. There's a legal presumption in the Family Law Act that both parents have equal shared parental responsibility for all major long-term decisions relating to a child's care, and that presumption can only be removed by order of the court following successful rebuttal to the presumption. Orders for sole parental responsibility are extremely difficult to get, in this day and age. Your time and money would be better spent aiming to uphold the child's rights, which is to have a meaningful relationship with both parents, not just one.
I can't say I've found the court to be biased against fathers, provided they choose not to act as though the court is biased against them. Family law judges are pretty switched on - they are very good at telling the difference between a party who is acting in the child's best interests, and a parent who is just out for vindication disguised as the child's best interests (which, as a matter of interest, is quite often the mother). Thus, it's important to be the parent that always puts the child's best interests first, even when the other parent refuses to do so. If you make effort to minimise their exposure to conflict and make effort to communicate with the mother in a reasonable fashion, the court will have to turn somewhere else to find the problem. If it's not you, it's her, if that makes sense.
Anyway, I hope this helps and apologise if I seem a bit blunt. As a demographic definitely still recovering from years and years of being treated like the 'lesser parent' in court, I try to encourage fathers not to see themselves as being the lesser parent because amendments in 2006 definitely changed that dynamic to their benefit. Especially now, fathers are being treated as fathers should be treated - as equally important. But it's just harder to establish yourself as that when you get distracted by the frustration of slow court proceedings, a refusal by police to act (only because they simply can't in a legal sense, not because they don't support fathers), and a mother who seems to be freely playing the 'superior parent' role with no retribution.
At the end of the day, the court doesn't like parents who withhold kids, and judges have no hesitation at all in telling parents exactly what's what. Just be patient and follow the right procedures.
Darren, I'm glad to hear that the kids are spending time with you again. It's unfortunate it takes such extreme action to prompt the other party to make the right decision.
Initiating applications for parenting orders should be served on the other party (or their solicitor) as early as practicable, so yes, within 28 days is reasonable. The earlier, the better, though. You don't want a situation where the other party claims they haven't enough time to file a response, resulting in an adjournment for six months.
tyvm allforher on your feed back ill take it on board and ideas when it comes to mediation . I also would like to ask one thing if I may and that is , since she won't let me see my daughters can I go to there school but not in school hours where there in class but after school . And if my daughters come to me has my x partner have the rights to stop my daughters coming to me or to tell the school I'm am not aloud there . Just curious about this one ... Tyvm again
Technically, yes, you can go to their school, and no, the school/mother can't stop you, but is it in the best interests of the kids to do so? If it is going to exacerbate and expose the kids to conflict, then no, it's probably not in their best interests.
Kids need at least one parent looking out for them and protecting them from the madness, and if the mother won't do it, that leaves you.
Kids need at least one parent looking out for them and protecting them from the madness, and if the mother won't do it, that leaves you.
State police will not get involved unless there is an immediate risk or a Court Ordered recovery and they are seconded by the Feds.
Is it sealed by the Court? (red stamp of Federal Circuit Court or black stamp of local Court and a jacket that calls it consent orders) Just because you have signed off and she had a solicitor does not necessarily make it an Order. That needs to be filed in Court or with an "application for Consent Orders" and in the absence of either of those I suspect there is merely an unenforceable parenting plan.
Stop talking to your ex. Get yourself a lawyer if you can mate...doing it yourself is at path to madness and despair.
If they are orders contravention is in order. if they are not orders make an application.
Yes the timings for service are correct. Initiating process needs personal service which is easy if her lawyer will accept service. Needs a sheriff or process server if yo are starting a new matter.
It is a specialist jurisdiction. If nothing else start saving your dollars for a solicitor and barrister for final hearing.
Is it sealed by the Court? (red stamp of Federal Circuit Court or black stamp of local Court and a jacket that calls it consent orders) Just because you have signed off and she had a solicitor does not necessarily make it an Order. That needs to be filed in Court or with an "application for Consent Orders" and in the absence of either of those I suspect there is merely an unenforceable parenting plan.
Stop talking to your ex. Get yourself a lawyer if you can mate...doing it yourself is at path to madness and despair.
If they are orders contravention is in order. if they are not orders make an application.
Yes the timings for service are correct. Initiating process needs personal service which is easy if her lawyer will accept service. Needs a sheriff or process server if yo are starting a new matter.
It is a specialist jurisdiction. If nothing else start saving your dollars for a solicitor and barrister for final hearing.
Police wont do anything....
but if the father goes and takes the child that is being witheld, the courts frown upon it...but that is what im considering doing.
I would really strongly steer away from this. The court doesn't just frown upon it - it will often order supervised arrangements to ensure it doesn't happen again. Many cases have fallen apart because parents have played tug o' war with their kids' lives when they have no right to do so. You would be better off garnering some patience and following the right avenues for remedy. Taking the kids makes you as bad as the mother when she withholds them.
Similar threads