VIC Parenting orders say half of school holidays - mother saying that doesn't apply in CV circumstances

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
4,149
594
2,894
Hey Tim. Was your last post before or after the Sunday night Sco mo rant?


Only leave the house to go shopping. Not driving 3 hours to stop at a Macca's in Sydney to drop off kids?
Now with nearly 2 weeks before I am meant to drop off the kids, it is likely the restrictions will get tighter. I'm also of the dilemma that if the restrictions get tighter once the kids are with the ex, she will use that to keep them. Possibly for months. She is also the sort of punter who has in the past decided the orders are no longer applicable for reasons that I can't even try to get my head around... So for example I didn't see the kids for a while because the orders say 'or by agreement' and she decided she no longer agreed with any of them so she didn't have to follow them.

I think in light of the current situation - orders should be followed. BUT - I don't think the courts will smash me for making a decision - especially if the email to the ex promises make up time...
Discuss?
 

GlassHalfFull

Well-Known Member
28 August 2018
364
28
654
I don't have an answer Sammy, but the chief justice of the Family Court has pretty much said use common sense, communicate, follow the orders where possible, and expect your ex to do the same. It was an upbeat, positive message that assumed we'd all just do the right thing for the sake of the children, and that obviously didn't factor in that so many of our exes are conniving, selfish, mentally unstable, terrible human beings. ;)

My ex has tried to pull the same kind of tricks, although not withholding the children completely thankfully. She's tried to change our handover location the day before (at my suggestion a week earlier, since it used to be a library and is now closed) to something I didn't agree with. When I said I didn't agree, she said "well this is all I'm offering, if you don't like it, you can involve our lawyers to sort it out". Her suggestion was the entrance to a supermarket, which is surely one of the worst places to given we're told to stay away from proximity to strangers, but she refused to budge. In the end I agreed despite it being silly, because the alternative was to not see my children.
 

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
4,149
594
2,894
oh dear... See I just spoke to my ex... She is adamant the govt will implement the hearding policy to Corona. I have no doubt that she will let the kids go everywhere and do everything regardless of Corona.
 

GlassHalfFull

Well-Known Member
28 August 2018
364
28
654
What is the hearding policy? Oh you mean herd immunity... where we just give up, let everyone get sick and eventually the virus peters out because there's enough people who have immunity? That may happen later if we don't contain it. But I think we're months away from reaching that point...
 

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
4,149
594
2,894
Yeah - Britain had a 'herd imunity' approach. But quickly realised that the she'll be right approach was the wrong approach.
 

GlassHalfFull

Well-Known Member
28 August 2018
364
28
654
Yeah. Although I'm not even sure what the 'right' approach is. Obviously in theory we could stop the virus dead in its tracks if every person on planet earth isolated perfectly for 2-3 weeks. But in the real world, that'll never happen because people aren't robots, we have needs that can't always be met by staying at home (travelling to handover children being the salient example right now). My concern is that we'll do this 80% serious lockdown for months, still fail to adequately stop the spread of the virus, and still ruin the economy while not completely halting the virus's reach into our populations after all. So we may end up with the worst of both worlds - a ruined economy flattened by months of lockdown, and still eventually ending up with millions and possibly billions infected. The only silver lining may be that if we can drag it out a while, we'll have effective treatments (vaccine, antivirals etc) that will mean we can actually get back to normal despite the virus being prevalent. But probably not in the next 3-6 months.
 

gunnerzzzz

Well-Known Member
8 March 2020
43
0
121
Yeah. Although I'm not even sure what the 'right' approach is. Obviously in theory we could stop the virus dead in its tracks if every person on planet earth isolated perfectly for 2-3 weeks. But in the real world, that'll never happen because people aren't robots, we have needs that can't always be met by staying at home (travelling to handover children being the salient example right now). My concern is that we'll do this 80% serious lockdown for months, still fail to adequately stop the spread of the virus, and still ruin the economy while not completely halting the virus's reach into our populations after all. So we may end up with the worst of both worlds - a ruined economy flattened by months of lockdown, and still eventually ending up with millions and possibly billions infected. The only silver lining may be that if we can drag it out a while, we'll have effective treatments (vaccine, antivirals etc) that will mean we can actually get back to normal despite the virus being prevalent. But probably not in the next 3-6 months.
From the many timeline YouTube documentry series videos I watched on plagues etc... Everyone staying inside won't kill the virus.

They can disappear and come back worse.

Lots agree, with herd mentality approaches as yes, people get immunity, the immunity is passed down also through generations ending it.

Look at the black plague, that came back by memory numerous times over a few centuries, eventually depleting in effectiveness. Planning also helped with that too.

The reason to not do this approach is simple, health care systems crumble. Look at new York right now.

We will get tighter restrictions, but it's stagnated as the virus gets worse to balance normal life and protect hospitals which is the best approach overall, but delays it out.

Source.... I watch YouTube 😉
 

GlassHalfFull

Well-Known Member
28 August 2018
364
28
654
Also, I read the other day that it's been confirmed (they believe, at least) to have been passed from human to cat in China and the UK. So even if WE eradicated the virus in the human population, there's a good chance it could be dormant in cats...
 

gunnerzzzz

Well-Known Member
8 March 2020
43
0
121
Also, I read the other day that it's been confirmed (they believe, at least) to have been passed from human to cat in China and the UK. So even if WE eradicated the virus in the human population, there's a good chance it could be dormant in cats...
Lucky I'm a dog person.

Next thing you know... My ex has a cat, withholding custody 🙀
 

Atticus

Well-Known Member
6 February 2019
1,042
167
2,394
Herd immunity?.... I reckon Scotty & his 'advisors' may be doing a mix of that & containment to help the health system cope

Medicos reckon the herd approach requires around 60% of the population get infected... Scotty has often mentioned a figure of between 50-70%... The strategy is to allow a slow burn infection rate mainly among the young who can better handle it while protecting & isolating as much as possible the elderly from the young...... Any similarity to actual events purely coincidental :oops:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Been2Trial