Final orders but past are not discharged

[Ivehadenough]

what happens if you have final orders but past ones are not discharged ?
can they then be used as orders by default, if new ones can not be agreed ?
Or was it just an oversight of judge and they now mean not a thing

 

[sammy01]

kids? or assets? or both?
I'll make some assumptions as a hypothetical. New orders provide more time with the kids with dad.... Mum has decided the old orders that have less time need to continue because the new orders don't say all previous orders discharged.... IF that were the case then mum would not want to use that argument in court...

Ordinarily new orders make the old ones redundant... What is the particular context?

 

[Ivehadenough]

No , new orders are in agreement only , supervised visits are the only thing that one party will agree on , other party wants to reopen case and have child full time , old orders had time supervised every weekend for few hours , just wondering if they could be used as not discharged ....
But as you say new orders being final would over ride previous

 

[sammy01]

So one parent wants the child full time? but the other parent is only agreeing to supervised visits as final consent orders?

How can one parent have a meaningful relationship with a child if they can only see the child at a contact centre for a few hours?
So IF you're the parent who is only seeing the kid at the contact centre... Don't AGREE.
If you're the parent who will only agree to supervised visits I would suggest you have a think about the situation because if the other parent wants the child to live with them full time then that suggests that there is not any reason for the supervision requirement...

Look, I obviously don't have all the details BUT to have final consent orders that mean that one parent will never ever spend time with their kid unless at a supervision centre just seems cruel.

 

[Ivehadenough]

Actually other parent turned up when child was a toddler , is homeless 80% of time ,police records , mental illness, and drug history, oh and first child removed by facs
, I suppose wanting full care of child ,would give a nice pension ,housing and no work for the dole ,
this is what a kinship carer deals with ,but whilst legal aid keeps throwing money at them to court we keep going back
as cruel as it seems when a child is forced to live in a car or drug den , supervised visits is in best interest of child

 

[sammy01]

Fair enough... That is why I was asking..
So given the history, surely the other parent has a very weak case as far as asking for 100% care? One would think legal aid would cancel their funding because the other parents expectations are unreasonable.