NSW Family Law Reasons Why Children are Removed from Mother's Care?

[Vee]

Can someone please tell me what the reasons are for a judge tol remove a baby from the mother's care under Family law?

If a false report was made against the mother to DOCS and she's been referred to "Uniting" - will this impact negatively on her?

 

[MartyK]

Is the child still in the mother's care? Is the mother willing to accept help with the issues? Are any proceedings already under way in the Family Court or another Court?

 

[Vee]

My sister left her ex partner's home when she was 34 weeks pregnant (she'd only been living with him for 2 months and they were no longer a couple when she moved out). She's living close to her support network and is in a much better place. She agreed to work with Uniting.

Her ex filed the false report to DOCS while at the same time applying for full custody of the baby (he's never seen or met the baby). Court is next month.

Previous family court case between herself and her ex husband has closed as they reached a decision amicably regarding their 2 school aged children.

 

[MartyK]

There would need to be a very good reason for the Family Court to reverse the residence of a baby. No reports or concerns about the other 2 children? If not, a single report to DOC's is unlikely to be compelling enough for an urgent change in care if the baby is still with the mother and she's linked up to Uniting.

Are you sure the father of the baby made the report? Has he spent any time with his baby? If answers are yes and no, is there a chance that the latter is the reason for the former?

 

[Vee]

The father of the baby did make the report as it mirrored his "notice of risk" that he filed to avoid mediation.

The report was about the two children that aren't his- ranging from them missing school repeatedly (untrue), the mother never cooking or cleaning (untrue- she just didn't cook or clean for him), allowing her kids to watch horror movies (untrue), refusing to allow her kids to play outside in fear of her ex-husband (untrue), stressing her daughter to the point of her having accidents (untrue) and having an unhealthy relationship with her son, who calls himself her husband (don't all kids to that?), and alienating her children from their dad (they were going through court and issues with DV, which they're going to have orders for soon resolving all of this).

Regardless when Uniting came and their only real concerns were missing school, which they can investigate and see is untrue. For his alleged baby, he said the mother never wanted the baby (untrue) and refused prenatal care - the mother had prenatal care until 18 weeks (her scan was perfect) - she then went interstate with her kids until week 30 with GPs permission. In that time, she continued eating right, taking Elevit, etc.

Upon returning to get state, she'd moved in with baby's alleged father and it was very cut off from everything she needed unless she had a licence (she doesn't), found out her GP quit, didn't want to go Dr shopping, continued with Elevit and looking after herself. As soon as she and her kids got out of his house and back to civilisation she booked in with the hospital and told them everything and there were no dramas. All baby's check-ups have been perfect.

But I'm wondering if anything mentioned would be good enough reason for the judge to remove her baby, especially since her ex-husband and ex-partner have the same lawyer?

 

[MartyK]

The mother went interstate on GP's advice? Did this result in a breach of the orders between the 1st father and her?

Do the DV proceedings relate to the 1st father? I took the impression this was already resolved and now amicable?

Both fathers are being represented by the same lawyer? Do not dismiss the possibility that the 1st father will support the 2nd in the current proceedings and join as a party.

 

[Vee]

There were no orders at the time she and the kids went interstate, but she had the first father's permission anyway.

The DV issues do relate to the first father, yes. They've written up orders that they agreed upon (concentrating on the kids and not their own issues). Expecting them to be finalised next week? (As was the update she gave me last night).

She thought of that scenario and asked first father- he said he wouldn't do it, all he wants is the agreement they've decided on and he'll be happy. We're both concerned, however, as this process with first father has shown us how corrupt the system is.

 

[MartyK]

You should have a better indication of the direction things are heading after the orders and matters between the mother and 1st father are finalised.

 

[Vee]

An update- lawyer wouldn't write up their amicable agreement- believes there's risk and the children conference needs to happen first.

Court day for baby- the dad's lawyer asked to join both cases- the judge said no as it's aseparatee case/separate matter.

DNA tests are ordered. Baby is still living with mum. Next court day is September.

Would the fact that the baby's alleged dad has a neurological disorder which will only be worse over time, help? He also works full time but lives with parents. Says his family will help raise baby.

 

[AllForHer]

Is he still seeking full custody of the infant? Or has his position changed?

He's going to have to pitch an amazing case to have an order for change of residence of an infant made in his favour. Requesting a change of residency for an infant usually shows lack of insight for the child's needs and best interests, so it would almost definitely require a finding of fact that some kind of abuse, neglect or violence has been perpetrated by the mother against the infant. Nothing you've listed is really compelling evidence of the severity it would need to be to change residency, and if the ex-husband hasn't cited the same concerns for the other two kids that are his, I can't see how the Court would give the allegations weight without third party supporting evidence.

What's the status of the case with the ex-husband? We are probably missing a lot of the story here, but it's uncommon for a lawyer to refuse to draw up consent orders. Realistically, they could do away with the lawyer and write them up themselves if they have reached an agreement, and it's unlikely that a judge will refuse.

I'm also wondering if perhaps there's a conflict of interest at play here. What evidence from one matter is inadvertently making its way into the other matter by way of the lawyer, I wonder?