QLD Question about supervision (consent orders)

[AllForHer]

Major long-term decisions fall generally into the following categories:
a) Education
b) Religion
c) major medical issues
d) the child's name
e) relocation such that it would interfere with the child's time with the other parent.

Everything else - what the child wears, what the child does while with the other parent, where they go, who they stay with - are day-to-day decisions.

 

[LouiseThomas]

Thank you appreciate the clarification. I just can't understand why the consent orders were stamped by courts if the family law act states otherwise. Or were they not really looked at properly because it was made by consent? Ex argues he had no understanding of the orders at the time

 

[AllForHer]

Look, to me, it sounds like you want to use the orders to control who dad lives with, control what dad does during the child's time with him, and control how dad chooses to parent the child.

Would you say that's an accurate description of what's going on here?

 

[LouiseThomas]

I am sure it looks like that yes. And at the beginning when orders were drawn up, that was the intention. That was years ago.

He doesn't comply with all of that and I guess I am wanting more information for everyone's benefit. Once I understand fully (as I am beginning to) then I will be able to understand his perspective better.

 

[LouiseThomas]

But what I guess I am still unsure about is why the court stamps orders like the ones we have had if they are of no use? I am gathering perhaps in certain situations, orders like this are necessary. For example if there are people who are abusive to the child then fair enough an order like that can be made to restrict said parent from letting child near such a person etc??

 

[AllForHer]

No.

If a parent is found to pose an unacceptable risk of harm to a child, the Court will order the child spend no time with that parent, or it will order that such time take place under supervised conditions at a contact centre.

There are no circumstances in which the Court will make orders that a parent can't live with anyone else (unless it is a specific person for a specific reason) or that they have to report to the other parent everything they do with the child.

But see, the Court didn't really make these orders, did it? The Court can't make orders without the benefit of having tested the evidence, so if two parents present with ludicrous orders that they've both agreed to, the Court won't refute them because a) the parties aren't in dispute anymore and b) it hasn't tested any evidence.

The problem with consent orders that have been made without proper understanding of family law is that many of the orders end up being fundamentally unenforceable, or otherwise very likely to be changed by the Court at the very first contravention.

 

[LouiseThomas]

Excellent , thank you for that.

Making more sense now. Sorry if my questions seem silly, I am really unaware of all of this but it seems that ex knows a bit so I am trying to be informed too.

As far as contraventions go......are the courts only interested in contraventions when it is a serious issue (such as a parent withholding contact for no reason)?

I am gathering (for example) that taking the other parent to court and contravening because the children spent a night at the father's friends house would be not worth anyone's while? Reason I am asking is because our orders (by consent) do state that only the parents are able to supervise the children but I guess realistically, this is not possible and enforceable moving forward?

Hope I make sense

 

[sammy01]

consent orders mean exactly that... you guys both agreed. Reading between the lines??? This is something you insisted on??? He agreed because his solicitor told him that it is not enforceable...

Ok so you have one option... Apply to court because he isn't following the orders and ask for them to be enforced. The magistrate can do a few things. Magistrate can direct your ex to comply with the orders. But, I'm willing to bet the magistrate will make a decision to change the orders so the whole grandma / new partner order no longer applies. So go for your life, apply to court, go through all of that crap, spend $$$ on a solicitor and a barrister to represent you.

You will have to prove to the magistrate that the order pertaining to the grandma / new partner NEED to be enforced to protect the child from harm... So assuming Granny isn't Charles Manson and the new partner isn't Harvey Weinstein how are you going to convince a magistrate that there is a problem here?

You wont. IT will be a waste of time.

 

[AllForHer]

Generally, yes, the Court is only interested in significant contraventions - where one parent stops facilitating the kids' time with the other, where one relocates to another state, etc.

One night where the kids had a sleepover at dad's friend's place? The Court won't be interested.

You can sum it up as follows: if one parent is just being petty and causing problems for no reason other than control, the Court probably won't want to hear it.

 

[LouiseThomas]

Thank you Sammy and AllforHer. That is exactly what I was wanting to know. I do have family members who tell me that he does have to comply with those orders but they not solicitors so again thanks for advice. It looks like ex is right and does have better understanding of this family act