Goodness me!! That is absolutely unfair for the child! If it's the same as us where the mother has no reason for the restricted time then she really has no leg to stand on surely?
NSW Partner's Ex Refusing Visitation until Consent Orders are in Place?
- Thread starter Hpflstpmum
- Start date
Well-no, meaning we would have to apply to the court as all for her said and get interim orders in lead up to hearing...hopefully as all for her said 95% of time doesn't go to the next hearing and consent orders are made. Unfortunately my ex now suffers from depression and add and it is all a big drama/soap opera.
My partner really doesn't want to apply to court, but looks like we have to.
We actually are going into mediation and similar to you will just accept 7 or 8 nights in school hols rather than go to court, as she probably won't keep to the orders anyway and the courts do nothing if women break them...if a man does they do.
Other option if mediation doesn't work is to...next time we see her, just simply don't give her back on the grounds of best interest for child and mother has continues not to promote a relationship with us and her half brother.
My partner really doesn't want to apply to court, but looks like we have to.
We actually are going into mediation and similar to you will just accept 7 or 8 nights in school hols rather than go to court, as she probably won't keep to the orders anyway and the courts do nothing if women break them...if a man does they do.
Other option if mediation doesn't work is to...next time we see her, just simply don't give her back on the grounds of best interest for child and mother has continues not to promote a relationship with us and her half brother.
Oh dear. Sounds just as painful as our predicament.
My partner spoke with his lawyers today and they've agreed to wait another week before we consider going to court in case the ex decides that she really doesn't have much of a chance to win what she wants and responds to us. The lawyers did warn it can still be a costly exercise with the preparation for court and then sending the application and affidavit to the ex to have her respond, then how long it takes for the court to set a date, etc. So my partner is very apprehensive about that and now we're not so hopeful about seeing his daughter for the next holidays.
How sexist that the courts do nothing if the orders are breached by a woman! Do you think it's just because it happens more often with women as they're usually the primary carers and therefore feel they have more power to choose what they want?
Are you allowed to do that? Are you not fearful of the possible ramifications of doing that? I think it's still considered kidnapping, isn't it? Otherwise all parents would be doing it?
I wish you all the best!!
My partner spoke with his lawyers today and they've agreed to wait another week before we consider going to court in case the ex decides that she really doesn't have much of a chance to win what she wants and responds to us. The lawyers did warn it can still be a costly exercise with the preparation for court and then sending the application and affidavit to the ex to have her respond, then how long it takes for the court to set a date, etc. So my partner is very apprehensive about that and now we're not so hopeful about seeing his daughter for the next holidays.
How sexist that the courts do nothing if the orders are breached by a woman! Do you think it's just because it happens more often with women as they're usually the primary carers and therefore feel they have more power to choose what they want?
Are you allowed to do that? Are you not fearful of the possible ramifications of doing that? I think it's still considered kidnapping, isn't it? Otherwise all parents would be doing it?
I wish you all the best!!
Personally, I don't think the court is as gender-biased as many would have you believe. Unfortunately, the court turns everyone into adversaries where someone always wins and someone always loses, but it's more common to believe the court is biased than it is to believe that a party lost for a valid reason. When the mother loses, it's because "the father lied his way through court" and when the father loses, it's because "the court is gender biased". You will never in a million years hear a parent on the losing team - mother or father - simply say, "Yes, the court had a valid reason for its judgment".
For men, I can also make sense of their perception, though. After all, it's women, rather than men, who are more likely to claim they fear for a child's safety which results in supervised visits, and this act, in my mind, comes down to biology. Women are the emotional gender, men are the logical gender. As such, women tend to want revenge, whereas men tend to want what's fair.
But these days, the court is privy to the emotional games every day of the week, and I would even argue to the contrary of the court's alleged gender bias toward women. To me, it seems the court is becoming more intolerant of mothers who bank on the long history of woman-is-victim social discourse to advance their case. The court is placing greater importance on dads these days and is growing increasingly sceptical of allegations of domestic abuse, as well as recognising that women are quite often unable to put their emotions aside so their kids can have both parents in their lives. I would argue residency is now ordered in favour of fathers as often as it is in favour of mothers.
But unfortunately, the bigger issue is that it's the nature of the beast in the adversarial system that someone will come away with the short end of the straw, and it's the children who are most affected by the use of an adversarial system to govern relationships that should be co-operative rather than competitive. It's undoubtedly in a child's best interests for their parents to get along, but parents are still forced to turn to a system that has no choice but to ensure they don't get along at all. It is expected to act in the child's best interests, but is fundamentally unable to do so because it must turn parents against each other to determine an outcome. This is why we need reform that is preventative of parental disputes, rather than curative.
For men, I can also make sense of their perception, though. After all, it's women, rather than men, who are more likely to claim they fear for a child's safety which results in supervised visits, and this act, in my mind, comes down to biology. Women are the emotional gender, men are the logical gender. As such, women tend to want revenge, whereas men tend to want what's fair.
But these days, the court is privy to the emotional games every day of the week, and I would even argue to the contrary of the court's alleged gender bias toward women. To me, it seems the court is becoming more intolerant of mothers who bank on the long history of woman-is-victim social discourse to advance their case. The court is placing greater importance on dads these days and is growing increasingly sceptical of allegations of domestic abuse, as well as recognising that women are quite often unable to put their emotions aside so their kids can have both parents in their lives. I would argue residency is now ordered in favour of fathers as often as it is in favour of mothers.
But unfortunately, the bigger issue is that it's the nature of the beast in the adversarial system that someone will come away with the short end of the straw, and it's the children who are most affected by the use of an adversarial system to govern relationships that should be co-operative rather than competitive. It's undoubtedly in a child's best interests for their parents to get along, but parents are still forced to turn to a system that has no choice but to ensure they don't get along at all. It is expected to act in the child's best interests, but is fundamentally unable to do so because it must turn parents against each other to determine an outcome. This is why we need reform that is preventative of parental disputes, rather than curative.
I totally agree AllForHer. I hope that if/when we go to court that we experience the justice and non-bias gender ruling that is deserved but we can only wait and see.
Spoke to my daughter for the first time in three weeks on Saturday over the phone for 20 minutes,
it was great...first time in ages the idiot of a mother hasn't had phone on loud speaker so she can hear what i'm saying.
Unfortunately the mother has told DD everything regarding mediation etc, DD says "I will be able to see you next year, have you got your room ready". Sad in a way.
As for above post-surely it's not kidnapping when no orders are in place and you simply don't give child back?
it was great...first time in ages the idiot of a mother hasn't had phone on loud speaker so she can hear what i'm saying.
Unfortunately the mother has told DD everything regarding mediation etc, DD says "I will be able to see you next year, have you got your room ready". Sad in a way.
As for above post-surely it's not kidnapping when no orders are in place and you simply don't give child back?
I'm happy you got to speak to your daughter, speck1, but it's saddening the mother has spoken to the child about the adult matter of mediation and care arrangements. If you make any progress on an agreement, make sure you include an explicit order that the parents are not to discuss adult matters or court proceedings with, in the presence, or in the hearing range of the child.
It's not kidnapping, but I really, really discourage it. The court tends to perceive it as deliberately putting the child in the middle of the parents' conflict, contrary to the child's best interests, and besides, the mother would be able to file for a recovery order and would likely succeed, which just serves to complicate (and damage) your case further.
Generally speaking, if you can't get consent orders, interim orders are the next best thing.
It's not kidnapping, but I really, really discourage it. The court tends to perceive it as deliberately putting the child in the middle of the parents' conflict, contrary to the child's best interests, and besides, the mother would be able to file for a recovery order and would likely succeed, which just serves to complicate (and damage) your case further.
Generally speaking, if you can't get consent orders, interim orders are the next best thing.
Another question, with the mediation in three weeks.
Myself and my fiancee both have intervention orders against us for a year...Mind you, mine was for sending a text msg saying "Parental Alienation" and my fiancee's was the only text that she ever sent saying "you're not letting us see ......., you're a bad mother" that's all it was and to fight it, the court was 4-hours away so we didn't attend.
Anyway, mind states that mediation and court the intervention order doesn't apply...my fiancee's, it doesn't say that-we want to do mediation as a couple though. How do we go about getting to be allowed to attend?
Do i contact the registar?
Myself and my fiancee both have intervention orders against us for a year...Mind you, mine was for sending a text msg saying "Parental Alienation" and my fiancee's was the only text that she ever sent saying "you're not letting us see ......., you're a bad mother" that's all it was and to fight it, the court was 4-hours away so we didn't attend.
Anyway, mind states that mediation and court the intervention order doesn't apply...my fiancee's, it doesn't say that-we want to do mediation as a couple though. How do we go about getting to be allowed to attend?
Do i contact the registar?
Frankly, I don't think you should have your fiancee attend at all. Of course, it's your right to have her there as a support person, but the registrar will not facilitate her inclusion in discussions and decision-making, and she's probably more likely to exacerbate conflict than reduce it. Similarly, the court doesn't take well to step-parents who over-involve themselves in parenting matters.
If you genuinely want to reach agreement, do everything necessary to establish an environment where that can happen, and if having your fiancee present is likely to reduce the chances, then don't take her. If she wants to step-parent, you're going to have to get the care arrangements established first, and if the the chances of that happening are higher if she appears uninvolved, then so be it. The faster those arrangements are made, the more time she will have to actually be a step-parent in practice, rather than just a step-parent in theory because she never sees the child.
I understand this isn't what you want to hear. As I've said before, it would be wonderful if step-parents and biological parents could get along and enjoy their respective roles and responsibilities freely and without hindrance. However, it's just not the reality of the situation, and we have to work with what we've got, rather than what we think we should have.
I, for one, think I should be able to answer my own front door without risk of abuse, but if not doing so means my stepdaughter doesn't have to witness a nuclear meltdown on her mum's behalf, then I'm willing to hand that simple duty over to my husband, even though I shouldn't have to. You can't control how the mother reacts to situations, but you do have some control over how those situations eventuate.
I know you might feel like you're letting the mother 'win' by leaving your fiancee on the backseat for a little while, but it's your daughter who wins if that small concession means she gets to spend more time with you and your fiancee. Besides, such concessions need only apply until you have those orders on paper in black and white, complete with the seal of the court.
If you genuinely want to reach agreement, do everything necessary to establish an environment where that can happen, and if having your fiancee present is likely to reduce the chances, then don't take her. If she wants to step-parent, you're going to have to get the care arrangements established first, and if the the chances of that happening are higher if she appears uninvolved, then so be it. The faster those arrangements are made, the more time she will have to actually be a step-parent in practice, rather than just a step-parent in theory because she never sees the child.
I understand this isn't what you want to hear. As I've said before, it would be wonderful if step-parents and biological parents could get along and enjoy their respective roles and responsibilities freely and without hindrance. However, it's just not the reality of the situation, and we have to work with what we've got, rather than what we think we should have.
I, for one, think I should be able to answer my own front door without risk of abuse, but if not doing so means my stepdaughter doesn't have to witness a nuclear meltdown on her mum's behalf, then I'm willing to hand that simple duty over to my husband, even though I shouldn't have to. You can't control how the mother reacts to situations, but you do have some control over how those situations eventuate.
I know you might feel like you're letting the mother 'win' by leaving your fiancee on the backseat for a little while, but it's your daughter who wins if that small concession means she gets to spend more time with you and your fiancee. Besides, such concessions need only apply until you have those orders on paper in black and white, complete with the seal of the court.
That's great news about talking to your daughter! Very happy for you.
Thanks again AllForHer for your wise words.
We're waiting until tomorrow to see what we want to do about court with my partner's ex as my partner wanted to wait an extra week in case she realised she really should just negotiate with us. Sigh. Not looking good at this stage!
Thanks again AllForHer for your wise words.
We're waiting until tomorrow to see what we want to do about court with my partner's ex as my partner wanted to wait an extra week in case she realised she really should just negotiate with us. Sigh. Not looking good at this stage!