QLD I left the Marital house With my child after separation, can we go back?

[sammy01]

Glasshalf full - I wasn't having a go at you so much as a few other recent posts.
I reckon your advice is pretty good and I agree.. DVO is used in courts - NO DOUBT. The plot lines are always the same - She claims DV, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, narcissist, affair, can't parent, can't co-parent, cant communicate blah blah. And HE claims she lied to get the avo, that she was violent too, feminist conspiracy, borderline personality, using the children for child support, parental alienation blah blah blah.

My thinking is anyone with a keyboard and the capacity to put emotion aside AND at least average intelligence can self represent - at least through the initial stages.... of negotiation. BUT if it goes to court then solicitors and barristers are the way to go if the amount of assets is big enough to be bothered bringing in the heavy weights to have that fight. NO point spending $90 000 on solicitors to get an asset divisions of 80% when the asset pool is only $20

 

[GlassHalfFull]

They are common plot lines but I reckon there's a lot of truth in it. The difference is between the two sides is, the balance of power is shifted firmly to the benefit of the accuser (commonly the female). It's trivially easy to get an AVO with little to no evidence, but very difficult to disprove allegations made. And the reasoning seems to be that because they're civil matters with no significant legal consequence, what's the harm? But the reality is that there's a HUGE amount of harm done. Innocent people are EVICTED. Innocent people lose their rights to their possessions (not legally, but in practical terms that's what happens). Innocent people lose their relationship with their children. I think skepticism towards claims of DV should be the default position given the consequences of an family violence order and how easy they are to get. It doesn't have to be a gender bias issue. Regardless of what gender is claiming DV, there should be evidence to back it up. And I get it, sometimes they are emergencies and orders need to be granted on the spot without both sides having time to prepare their case. Sure, but in that situation at least be confident that it really is an emergency (usually for an emergency, there'd have to be evidence of threats or actual imminent violence already), have the case heard on an interim basis within a week or two and be prepared to quash the order if insufficient evidence is given, or if the narrative turns out to be false (lets say the accused was physical, but on the balance of probabilities, it was acting in self defence).

The argument that I've heard is that no magistrate wants to be accountable for dismissing a DV order only for the partner to get revenge a few days later. But should DV policy be dictated by worst case scenarios? A bit of common sense should prevail, surely, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty should be applied given the consequences (which are often far worse than many criminal matters!)... Anyway, I digress. Despite my strong opinions on the DV industry, I'm in no position to change it. I'm just a disgusted by the bias inherent in the system.

Yeah I kind of agree with you about self representation except that an arrogant solicitor would know damn well they are talking with someone ignorant of their rights and the law, and exploit it when it comes to negotiation. They could just continue to make silly offers, bully the unrepresented party with legal jargon and say "take it to court if you think you can do better", effectively emotionally and financially blackmailing the other side into taking their silly offer. I'm sure that's how many solicitors operate, either of their own volition or under the instructions of their client.