VIC Intervention order procedures

[CSFLW]

Hi rajb

Is this the first hearing?

Who applied for the order? The police or the mother (this makes a big difference)?

Without knowing the answers to the questions above, and without seeing the interim intervention order, you can appear at the court at the first hearing and decline to accept the order.

This will allow you time to get advice and also book in for a mediation (wait time for mediations are long).

If you want help, please email us your intervention order [Removed by Moderator - Community Guidelines] we can give you some preliminary advice (no charge).

 

[sammy01]

Ok - we need some fact checking here folks.
Firstly, it is unclear as to whether or not the cops made the application or the ex. That is important.

Fact - AVO means no gun licence.
Fiction - AVO blocks a parent from getting a working with children permit.
Consequences of an AVO
UNSURE -Someone mentioned Relationships Australia wont do mediation if there is an avo. I don't think that information is correct. I had a look at their website and found nothing.

Family Dispute Resolution (Mediation) — Relationships Australia

A service to help separating families resolve their family law disputes.

www.relationships.org.au

Personal experience.
At first mention I sought an adjournment so that mediation could take place. I felt like the magistrate was giving me a good go. Basically there wasn't much else he could do, but it at least gave me a feeling that the avo wasn't gonna hinder child access (Kinda). See the biggest obstacle isn't the avo. It is the ex. If the ex doesn't want you to see the child then you wont see the child until you get to family court and get a judge to grant access. But let's just deal with the avo for the minute.

I had Mediation with Relationships Australia done. But even if the avo was final Relationships Australia would have still participated (I believe) and I can't find any source to suggest they wont help with mediation if there is an avo in place.


RAJB - I think you'll find on the avo paperwork it will say something about you being able to undertake actions for the purposes of facilitating access to kids. So that answers your question about how can you get to see the kid if you can't go near the ex. You can, so long as there is an agreement (parenting plan). So if the parenting plan states you can meet at XXXX at 9am on Saturday for the purposes of picking up the kid, then sweet.

So part of my thinking about accepting without admission applies when the police made the application. See if that is the case you're gonna have to spend up big on solicitors to defend it. Even if you win, it doesn't mean you can just take the child. True? so is it a fight worth having? In my opinion NOPE.

But if it is a private application then the advice might change.

 

[Atticus]

Ok - we need some fact checking here folks.
Firstly, it is unclear as to whether or not the cops made the application or the ex. That is important.

Took that as a given from Rajb first post >>> "Last week she filed an interim restraining order" .... Could be wrong will be nice to have clarity, HOWEVER, private or police should not alter the ability of Rajb from seeking to have the child's name removed at first mention, IF there are no grounds for the child to be, which seems the case here

Someone mentioned Relationships Australia wont do mediation if there is an avo. I don't think that information is correct. I had a look at their website and found nothing.

Couldn't actually find that being mentioned anywhere in this thread.... May have missed it... The position of mediators where there is a FVO in place (including interim) is that it is at their discretion whether to accept if mediation is appropriate.... ( Family Dispute Practitioners Regulations),,,BUT, what I did say & is a fact, is that a mediator CAN NOT make a parenting plan which is in contradiction to a FVO, even if both parents agree

And that goes to another reason that Rajb (or anyone in a similar position) should NOT accept without admissions at first mention IF there is a child named as a protected person... to repeat..... Because if that interim order is made final at the first mention, there is no further opportunity to bring this issue back before a court to have a childs name removed accept for an application to vary..... If mum is reluctant to do that, even after having agreed in mediation (perhaps after having discussed it with 'mates') then you are basically stuffed till you get it before a family court... Looking at months minimum.

So what are the pro's for accepting without admissions to an order that includes a child where that child was included with no basis? (regardless of the applicant BTW) Absolutely non that i can see, but happy to be shown otherwise ...... A respondent can AWA at any point before or during a court event.... Why rush into limiting your options?

 

[sammy01]

Ok so help me out atticus. Respondent is successful in having the child removed from the avo but accept without admission in regards to the ex. You still can't go near the ex? but the ex has the kid. So how does that help? Like you said, even if mum 'agrees' to a parenting plan, but then changes her mind, you're still at the mercy of mum to meet to organise visits. Sure you could lift the kid from pre-school. But what then? You can't return the child without breaching and you've pissed off mum, OH and you're gonna look bad in family court. So either way you're screwed until you get to family court.... But at least by agreeing to the kid being 'protected' you're not causing a fight with the ex. Smile and nod - suck it up until you get final orders or consent orders. Until then you're at the mercy of the ex. So don't fight.

So, like i said, there is likely to be some wording in the avo that relates to communication for the purposes of child access.
Here is a link to explain that in nsw. I'd imagine Vic would have similar.

AVOs and Family Law

Want to know how AVOs and Family Court orders affect each other? Click on this page to find out.

www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au

So have a look at the conditions of the avo.

 

[Atticus]

Ok so help me out atticus. Respondent is successful in having the child removed from the avo but accept without admission in regards to the ex. You still can't go near the ex? but the ex has the kid. So how does that help?

So let me just say at the outset.... There are no ideal outcomes here (apart from having the whole application & interim order thrown out), only less disadvantageous outcomes

So IF a magistrate accepts at first mention that there are no/insufficient grounds to include a child as a protected person, then there is no reason that the magistrate will not include a clause like or similar to the one you have highlighted, ie >>>> "

Order 6 may say:
You must not approach the protected people or contact her/him/them in any way, unless the contact is:
D) as agreed in writing between you and the parent(s) about contact with child/ren.

Can't see a clause such as that being included if the child remains a protected person....

But at least by agreeing to the kid being 'protected' you're not causing a fight with the ex. Smile and nod - suck it up until you get final orders or consent orders. Until then you're at the mercy of the ex. So don't fight

As you are aware, it could be a VERY long time before an application gets to a point of interim orders being made at FC level..... Will also cost you $10K minimum as a deposit with a lawyer JUST to get things started if you are not capable of self representing (not forgetting your probably paying full totes for CS during this whole period)...... Next problem is you are going into FC with a FVO that includes kid. Of course mum (or dad as case may be) is going to include a risk notice in her response.... Judges hands are effectively tied. Has to take account of current circumstances. A chance of him overriding the state order, but unlikely, so you have interim orders that are probably going to be restricted to quite limited supervised visits, most likely at a center that you are paying for...

So, IMO, imperative that you have kids name removed & clauses added that will allow you mediation via an accrdited mediator, not JUST a lawyer, & that should be first attempted at first mention..

 

[rajb]

Hi rajb

Is this the first hearing?

Who applied for the order? The police or the mother (this makes a big difference)?

Without knowing the answers to the questions above, and without seeing the interim intervention order, you can appear at the court at the first hearing and decline to accept the order.

This will allow you time to get advice and also book in for a mediation (wait time for mediations are long).

If you want help, please email us your intervention order [email protected] we can give you some preliminary advice (no charge).

Hi

- Yes this is the first hearing ever in my record
- My ex wife applied for this order and it is not her first as she had IVO's put on ex partner some 10 years ago
- I have already had my first mediation session last Friday and waiting for them to contact my ex partner to come to the table

 

[rajb]

I think you'll find on the avo paperwork it will say something about you being able to undertake actions for the purposes of facilitating access to kids.

Is this the condition (See attachment) you are mentioning? So far I haven't initiated any contact with my ex in regards to child visitations directly but at the mercy of the mediator. I am hoping she can come to some sort of co-parenting agreement with the use of parenting plan.

So, IMO, imperative that you have kids name removed & clauses added that will allow you mediation via an accrdited mediator, not JUST a lawyer, & that should be first attempted at first mention..

Like you mentioned this is what I want to do by contesting against the order.


Another option mentioned was the undertaking:
Also is it possible to agree to an undertaking ? I may need a lawyer for this right?

 

[Geddius75]

Fiction - AVO blocks a parent from getting a working with children permit.
Consequences of an AVO

TO be clear here, here in VICTORIA, which is where OP & I reside, if you have an AVO where an AFM is a child, you cannot get a WWCC. This is why I fought mine as I am a teacher and this had been verified by the Education Dept that you will almost always be issued with a Negative Notice. Quoting an NSW page does not benefit OP.

Fortunately I won and no order was placed.

Where no child is listed on the AFM, this will not impact any WWCC

Ok so help me out atticus. Respondent is successful in having the child removed from the avo but accept without admission in regards to the ex. You still can't go near the ex? but the ex has the kid. So how does that help?

Parenting order over rules the AVO here though the protection order would also state that OP cannot approach the AFM unless there is a handover. @rajb just ensure it is done publicly. I suggest a mid-way police station.

 

[sammy01]

Geddius - Can you get a link to support your statement. I am a teacher in NSW. I had an avo out on me about 7 years ago. When teachers had to get WWCC done (about 2 yrs ago) I was s**t scared. But nope...

Old mate. Go and ask at the cop shop if you will get into troube for sending 1 text message asking if the ex will agree to communicate via text to organise for the child to spend time with you and if it the ex agrees would you be in trouble? I reckon you won't be. BUT communicate JUST about seeing the child. Please thank you blah blah. Don't argue. But check with the cops.
And call all the free / subsidised mediation service providers near you. Google will help you find them.

the problem with trying to defend an avo is it will take a long time. There was one case here where it took nearly 12 months. But the applicaiton was only for 12 months. So the interim order stood for 11 months. The poor bloke basically didn't save himself any time in defendig it. Given this is a private application I'd consider asking for an undertaking.

Maybe someone can help here. If it is a private application, the police are not the applicant? So the ex would be the applicant and would need to either address the judge herself OR pay a solicitor?

 

[Atticus]

Is this the condition (See attachment) you are mentioning?

That's a good start @rajb ... Would still ask to have child's name removed at first mention though for all the reasons I have included in this thread...

Also is it possible to agree to an undertaking ? I may need a lawyer for this right?

Unlikley to be granted an undertaking at first mention unless your wife is present & agrees..... That still remains an option for later though, as long as you DON'T accept without admissions at first mention, if you do, it will mean applying to bring it back before court again... You don't need a lawyer