QLD Joint Case Summary - whats required?

[AllForHer]

I do applaud the resourcefulness of compiling orders taken from various cases on Austlii, but one must remember that each of those orders was made for specific circumstances arising from that specific case. As such, they may not be relevant to your circumstances and to your case. You need to take an objective position and ask yourself what the relevance is in your matter. Do you really want to tell mum every time you want to take the kid to the doctor for a cough? Do you really want to the rigmorale of needing mum's approval to go on holidays?

Now, you're seeking equal time, but there are some conditions that must be met before the Court will actually grant that, as required by section 65DAA of the FLA. One of the most important for your case is the parents' current and future capacity to communicate with each other and resolve difficulties that might arise in implementing an arrangement of that kind. In short, you need to show that you can communicate.

At the moment, you and mum can't even manage a civil hello to each other, let alone a productive conversation about which school the child should attend. You're the one seeking equal time, so this onus is solely on you - how are you going to show the Court that you can communicate about the child when you can't even stomach a simple hello?

I also think it's folly to point the finger solely at mum as the sole offender, too. You aren't an innocent bystander, here. Recording interactions, demanding drug tests the day after New Years Eve, wanting orders that control whether a parent can take the kid on holidays, whether the kid can see a doctor, even where the kid will be for just a single overnight away from the usual residence, is just a passive aggressive way of stirring the pot, and look what happened as a consequence: you cannot even say hello to each other.

You have no power to change mum's attitude toward you, but you do have the power to change your attitude towards mum. Stop recording changeovers. Start saying hello or even just giving a wave when you pick the kid up. You don't have to like each other to effectively co-parent. Co-parenting is not about friendship and good vibes. It's a business relationship about getting on with the job of parenting.

If you want equal time, you need to show the Court that you can communicate now. If you can't communicate voluntarily now, there isn't a chance in hell that you'll be able to communicate by force of the orders.

 

[AllForHer]

I wasnt aware that my orders have to be written up as her orders as well. Thats new to me.

Oh, and I just want to add that you only get one set of parenting orders out of a parenting matter, so when you write out the orders you want, they must be for both of you, not just you.

 

[Migz]

Thanks again Allforher, yes, I see where you are coming from, and I will say from the outset, I would happily go out to lunch or dinner with the mother of our daughter, I have no problems talking to her, infact I enjoy talking to her truth be told. (keep in mind we are talking about someone who can't even hold the door open for you as you walk into the swimming center, on multiple occassions, or say thanks when its held open for her) But I will let you in on something that was highlighted at the "change behaviour" group, now in this group was 12 other fellows, (4 were in a similar situation to me, young kids, recently broke up, court proceedings underway) but at about week 10, one of the fellows attended, and just blurted out to the rest of the group, "so who's missus here has clamed up and not said a word and refuses to talk about the kids or anything, since she started her parenting orders program"...well guess what another 6 arms raised, so somewhere in the mix of it they are being taught that this, "no talk" exercise works well for you in court.

Secondly, I do stand and wave good bye at the front gate while she drives off, all on film, but everytime without fail she turns her head away as she drives off, never reciprocates, and my daughter cant see a thing as she has now gone to the extreme of blacking out both rear windows of her vehicle.

Your point on the orders being for both parents, I will take onboard and address this week, I think to issue revised new "interim/final orders" at this stage would require an "application in case" to be put together.

 

[sammy01]

I'd like to think that govt funded services do not actively encourage / teach primary carers how to manipulate the system to remove the other parent.... (But to be honest, that is the case with some of them) I've even had a very nice lady who works as a support person for victims of DV tell me that her employment dictated that she only support women. She was nice enough to have a coffee with me on her own time...

But I think stuff like positive parenting courses do not intend to teach people how to screw over their ex... But I can well imagine that when some people hear the expert say that it is important to have good communication between parents to make shared care work... THEY HEAR - If you want to keep the kid away from the ex argue... If the other parent argues back get an AVO that will be even better..

Migz you're getting there. You're learning how to play the game better AND more importantly, you're being a good parent... And it will not be very long before your child is old enough to see daddy being nice to mummy and mummy being a pork chop. My eldest was not quite 5 when cyclone crazy arrived and sent my world into a spin... It didn't take long for the child to realise that mum had more time with the kids than dad, that dad was being nice and mum was being mean to dad... But more importantly, you're being a good role model for your kid in conducting yourself with integrity...

Mate I used to seriously ham it up... BYE BYE, don't go changing Talk soon, have a great day... SHE knew I was taking the piss... It actually made me feel empowered. She wanted me to fight, she wanted the conflict and I gave her the exact opposite.

 

[Corinne]

My two cents, I agree with the McDonald's issue. My step son's fast food intake increased to an exorbitant amount with all the McDonald's changeovers (on the mother's part). 5pm pick ups would result in her giving him to us with a gut full of junk, which ended with him not wanting to eat dinner with us and feel sick all night and the next morning due to the crap he'd just ingested. Happened every time. Even with requests well in advance asking her to specifically not give him any, we'd arrive on time and they'd already be in the drive through.
The public place didn't stop the tension between her and the other father either (2 kids 2 different fathers), they'd still scream at each other in the car park with us watching. He now has a DVO and doesn't see his kid at the moment so our changeovers now occur out of town at an agreed location closer to where we both live or at each other's house. Far away from the McDonald's lol.

 

[sammy01]

Solicitor once suggested to me that mcdonalds should stop selling food and just charge for the parking in 10 min increments... they could make good money out of the dads waiting for their kids...

 

[Migz]

Hi All,

So Just received a copy of the ex's Joint Case Summary from her lawyer... and now she is going for sole custody... HAHAHAHA, oh dear, here is an ex junkie/still alco, (hasn't produced the documentation for the 2nd test now either) wanting to have complete control over my daughters life. I've seen it all now.

Copy of Joint Case Summary.

Applicant:

The child’s primary attachment is with the Mother

Respondent:

2. Applicant:

The Applicant believes it is now in the child’s best interest to have sole parental responsibility with the Applicant due to the history and continuing conflict between the parties. In particular the Applicant is further concerned with recent medical decisions the Respondent believes is best for the child.

Respondent:

3. Applicant:

The Applicant has been a victim of family violence and asserts this is still continuing and is concerned the Respondent lacks insight into the effect this has on the child and the Applicant

4. Applicant:

The Applicant has acknowledged she has struggled with drugs and alcohol in the past, and does not believe there are any concerns with drugs and alcohol.

Respondent:

The Respondent believes the Applicant abuses drugs and alcohol.

5. Applicant:

The Applicant’s orders are in the best interest of the child, taking into account the child’s age and allows for a gradual increase of time, ensuring a meaningful relationship with the Respondent

Respondent

Any helpful advice will be greatly appreciated.