I received the report yesterday afternoon. The reporter recommends that my children will have supervised contact with me as soon as practicable. The report is the same from the Family Report Recommendation made by the family consultant at the request of the ICL and yet both ICL and the other party are asking for short adjournment. I have emailed them both that we can ask for a verbal request during the hearing tomorrow.
QLD Interpretation of Family Orders - Magellan Case
- Thread starter Junior
- Start date
I finally have supervised visits last July 2015. It was based on the Family Report made last year. There will be a case management hearing this coming November 2015. I still looking for a good family solicitor that will give direction to my family case. The applicant solicitor wants to continue the family report made last year.
For the meantime I represent myself but looking for a good solicitor which will handle my case. The ICL will be involved with the children. There are some false accusations made by applicant solicitor which the children contact centre denied. I want to have contact with my children 3 to 4 times a week without supervision. The children misses their dad and start asking when I'm coming home and they want to live with me. My boy who just turned 10 recently and my baby girl is 4 years old. Is there anything I can do if I couldn't get the solicitor before the court case management hearing?
For the meantime I represent myself but looking for a good solicitor which will handle my case. The ICL will be involved with the children. There are some false accusations made by applicant solicitor which the children contact centre denied. I want to have contact with my children 3 to 4 times a week without supervision. The children misses their dad and start asking when I'm coming home and they want to live with me. My boy who just turned 10 recently and my baby girl is 4 years old. Is there anything I can do if I couldn't get the solicitor before the court case management hearing?
Hi
Yes - you can ask that your matter be further adjourned but to get it back on may result in substatial delay. however given that you have a couple of weeks I would say you would be able to find a solicitor within that timeframe.
If you engage someone this week you should be fine (the solicitor will need as much time as possible to go through the relevant docs)
Hope this helps
Yes - you can ask that your matter be further adjourned but to get it back on may result in substatial delay. however given that you have a couple of weeks I would say you would be able to find a solicitor within that timeframe.
If you engage someone this week you should be fine (the solicitor will need as much time as possible to go through the relevant docs)
Hope this helps
Sorry, are you wondering what you should do at the case m'ment hearing if you don't have a solicitor?
Thanks @AllForHer, there was a series of false accusations and intimidation by the other party and I somewhat never received any reaction from the ICL. The contact centre purely denied the accusations made by the other party during the supervised contact with the children.
Side question here: If one party make untrue statements to the court obviously designed to injure the other parties interests (eg restrict visitation), and these statements are proved untrue to the family court's satisfaction:
- Is this a punishable offence?
- How do you proceed in getting it punished?
This is something a lot of people in parenting matters have issue with, Rod, and yet another reason why our system needs reform.
In theory, a person can be found in contempt if they have intentionally lied or misled the court, but in practice, this simply doesn't happen.
In my view, this is for two reasons.
First, it's easy enough for the perpetrator to argue that what they said is what they believed to be true at that time.
Second, in parenting matters, it is not necessary for the court to be satisfied that an act of domestic violence, for example, has taken place. It only needs to be satisfied that unreasonable risk exists. As such, it tends to be the reaction of the accused to false allegations that guides the outcome more so than the allegation itself.
In parenting matters, the court's decision is heavily influenced by the credibility of the witnesses, rather than just what they present in their affidavits. The theory is that it's hard to deliver a consistent and persuasive lie under extensive questioning in cross-examination. The punishment for lying, therefore, tends to reflect orders in the other person's favour, but in some cases, I would say the court gets it wrong.
Unfortunately, the existing family law system inadvertently permits and even encourages parents to lie because there is no deterrent against doing so. Realistically, what happens is that parents will chance a lie because it might work, or it might not, and there's no backlash if it doesn't when it comes to parenting matters. Lying does not a bad parent make, after all, even if it is a moral wrong and illegal.
It's a significant problem that you can see peppered through nearly every parenting matter determined by the Family Court or the Federal Circuit Court, but I don't know how they could possibly fix this. Jailing a parent for contempt is unlikely to be in the child's best interests; fining them removes funds from the child's upbringing (even though many parents clearly aren't that concerned about funds anyway, given the amount they will pay for court proceedings to try and exile the other parent entirely); removal of the child from their care is likely to cause trauma...what options are there?
In my view, the best option overall is to discourage people from pursuing court proceedings in the first place, and I think that can be attained with parental education, more forceful presumptions in legislation, and a tribunal that focused on a co-operative approach to parenting, rather than the adversarial approach that exists now.
But family law reform still seems to be off the radar of our esteemed politicians. Who knows how many families will be torn apart before the growing social narrative about equal parenting actually gains traction in parliament?
In theory, a person can be found in contempt if they have intentionally lied or misled the court, but in practice, this simply doesn't happen.
In my view, this is for two reasons.
First, it's easy enough for the perpetrator to argue that what they said is what they believed to be true at that time.
Second, in parenting matters, it is not necessary for the court to be satisfied that an act of domestic violence, for example, has taken place. It only needs to be satisfied that unreasonable risk exists. As such, it tends to be the reaction of the accused to false allegations that guides the outcome more so than the allegation itself.
In parenting matters, the court's decision is heavily influenced by the credibility of the witnesses, rather than just what they present in their affidavits. The theory is that it's hard to deliver a consistent and persuasive lie under extensive questioning in cross-examination. The punishment for lying, therefore, tends to reflect orders in the other person's favour, but in some cases, I would say the court gets it wrong.
Unfortunately, the existing family law system inadvertently permits and even encourages parents to lie because there is no deterrent against doing so. Realistically, what happens is that parents will chance a lie because it might work, or it might not, and there's no backlash if it doesn't when it comes to parenting matters. Lying does not a bad parent make, after all, even if it is a moral wrong and illegal.
It's a significant problem that you can see peppered through nearly every parenting matter determined by the Family Court or the Federal Circuit Court, but I don't know how they could possibly fix this. Jailing a parent for contempt is unlikely to be in the child's best interests; fining them removes funds from the child's upbringing (even though many parents clearly aren't that concerned about funds anyway, given the amount they will pay for court proceedings to try and exile the other parent entirely); removal of the child from their care is likely to cause trauma...what options are there?
In my view, the best option overall is to discourage people from pursuing court proceedings in the first place, and I think that can be attained with parental education, more forceful presumptions in legislation, and a tribunal that focused on a co-operative approach to parenting, rather than the adversarial approach that exists now.
But family law reform still seems to be off the radar of our esteemed politicians. Who knows how many families will be torn apart before the growing social narrative about equal parenting actually gains traction in parliament?
Similar threads