WA Interpreting Our Interim Consent Orders?

[Clayton]

I most recently signed Interim Consent Orders.

The order I want clarified is: The Applicant Father be at liberty to attend at the children's school for special events and events that a parent would ordinarily attend including but not limited to school concert, sports carnival, and school assembly involving the children. With the applicant to advise the respondent of his intentions to attend at least 24hrs before the event.

I wanted to attend Little Ninja's to watch two of my children train. It's held on their school grounds after school. However the Respondent is refusing to allow this.

Is she within her rights to stop me attending?

 

[AllForHer]

Nope.

Your obligation is to advise the other parent of your intention to attend. The orders don't stipulate that you also need the other parent's agreement.

 

[Lennon]

Provided that you give her 24 hours notice, you don't need her agreement.

What reason has she given to objecting to your attendance?

 

[Clayton]

Nope.

Your obligation is to advise the other parent of your intention to attend. The orders don't stipulate that you also need the other parent's agreement.

It's not so much that part of the order I'm considering. The Respondent will be disputing that the children's after school activity (Little Ninja's) is included in the orders, as it's not technically a school special event or something like that. But this is an event that a parent would ordinarily attend, it's that part of the order I'm worried about.

Our I.C.L. crafted this order, and she seems very sympathetic toward me. I am overly cautious, the Respondent would love any old excuse to put a VRO on me

 

[Clayton]

Provided that you give her 24 hours notice, you don't need her agreement.

What reason has she given to objecting to your attendance?

This is her only response - and it was to a text I sent notifying her I would be attending Tae Kwon Do and could she please tell me what time the girls are training. She responded 4 days later by email: "Nothing in the orders made gives you the right to come to weekly training sessions."

 

[AllForHer]

This line:

events that a parent would ordinarily attend​

Accompanied by this line:

including but not limited to​

Makes for pretty broad interpretation of that order. Is training something parents usually attend? Yep. Does it need to be explicitly listed in the order? Nope. So, can you attend? I don't think the Court would have issue with it.

Parenting orders are not pseudo-injunctions. They don't stop you from doing anything not explicitly allowed by the orders. If they intended to stop you from doing something, that something would be included as an injunction, but if parenting orders are otherwise silent on how to deal with some situation or issue, then you are at liberty to do as you see fit until such time that orders are made governing the particular matter in question.

So, while the assertion that 'Nothing in the orders made gives you the right to come to weekly training sessions' is technically correct, it is also correct that nothing in the orders made explicitly restricts you from going to weekly training sessions, either...

 

[sammy01]

I'm an English teacher... I'm interested by the phrase 'and events'... It would be arguable that it is saying school special events... So telling you not to go to school every day, just special events.... So the 'and events' clause (arguably) is stuff outside school time / perimeter. So I'd argue you can attend but I would also only stay if other parents stay.

So for example, I just picked my kids up from gymnastics. The gym has a rule - Parents allowed for first 10 min and last 10 min... I would argue that in that instance you would not want to stay for the rest of the gym class, by way of example...

But - is it worth it? Based on where you are in the family law game of Russian Roulette, is this one worth having. Will it show on-going conflict between you and the ex? If so, think bigger picture... Lose this battle for the sake of the war? See my point?

 

[Rob Legat - SBPL]

The way the order is worded indicates that there is something else which is restricting you. That context could be important.

As to the order itself, there are two things which stick out to me:
1. “Attend at the children’s school”
2. “Special events and events such as....”

On an ordinary reading this would say to me that this relates to events run by the school, and not just those happening on school grounds. I agree that a technical, ‘black letter law’ reading of the order may include the martial arts training if it occurs on school grounds, but that is not how courts are interpreting things currently.

The other issue is that it does say ‘events’ which indicates some type of special gathering. So, while you may argue that a grading (for example) is an event, the general class training is likely not. Compare this to being present at your child’s daily classroom lesson as opposed to attending a sports carnival.

 

[AllForHer]

Apply your logic, OP.

Is your attendance likely to create more conflict? Is it going to prompt mum to bombard the kids with complaints about your attendance on the drive home, which puts the kids in a difficult position?

If it's going to cause problems, let this one slide and don't attend.