Australia's #1 for Law

Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!

VIC Seeking "Further and Better Particulars" from Intervention Order?

Discussion in 'Other/General Law Forum' started by Stephanie Kewming, 20 September 2016.

  1. Stephanie Kewming

    Joined:
    19 September 2016
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    If an Intervention Order has been applied for in the state of Victoria, can the Respondent seek to receive the contents of the Application prior to a mention?

    I had understood that a Respondent can seek 'further and better particulars' from the magistrate.

    The local court is telling me that I have to wait until the mention, when in fact I believe it is reasonable for me to be privy to content so I can be equipped with the accusations against me so I can decide how to proceed at the first mention.
     
  2. AllForHer

    AllForHer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23 July 2014
    Messages:
    3,563
    Likes Received:
    646
    You must be provided with a copy of the application itself, but at this point, that's it.

    First mention isn't an opportunity defend yourself. It's where the Court decides if a relevant relationship exists and if the alleged conduct constitutes family violence in accordance with the relevant statute.

    You will be asked if you want to consent to the orders with or without admissions, or if you want to contest it at trial.

    Realistically, you shouldn't need anything more than the application to decide what you're going to do - are the allegations made on the application true? If so, accept without admissions. If not, contest. Easy.

    If you want to see other particulars about the application, then you can ask for that at first mention, but without consent of the aggrieved, you're unlikely to see it before then.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. Stephanie Kewming

    Joined:
    19 September 2016
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the feedback.

    Not unlike what I have been told. Allegations are untrue and whimsical at best but too costly to contest when I live in another state of Australia and am responsible for the applicants children.

    Victoria's law system works much differently to other states and it is frustrating to contest as the respondent MUST assign legal representation to be able to have the matter heard appropriately. Therefore, the respondent must simply walk away if it is cost prohibitive rather than having the matter heard. One can only hope that a magistrate lets common sense prevail.
     
  4. AllForHer

    AllForHer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23 July 2014
    Messages:
    3,563
    Likes Received:
    646
    Which is consequently why a lot of people consent without admissions and focus their attention instead on the more substantial matter, that being parenting orders.

    DVOs/AVOs/IVOs are, for lack of a better term, child's play when it comes to parenting matters. I've seen plenty of parents with DVOs against them still gain residency of their kids. The State Court doesn't see much harm in making restraining orders - better to be safe than sorry, right? But the Family Court is a different story - children have a lot to lose if the Family Court decides to make a no contact order, so it takes them very seriously.

    You might consider accepting without admissions on the proviso that communication about the children be allowed, and that the children are not named on the order.

    Remember, the only advice I give is to seek legal advice.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  5. okanynameyouwishthen

    okanynameyouwishthen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    12 February 2015
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    8
    I really must question your "advice".

    STERRY & STERRY[2017] FCCA 2255. In the quotation found in paragraphs 13-14, she reasons ;

    13. In determining X’s best interests at this interim hearing, the Court cannot ignore the very serious and very detailed allegations of physical, sexual and emotional violence that the mother has reported to police. Counsel for the father was critical of the mother’s failure to report these alleged assaults immediately, but with respect, the parties were still living together in a relationship at the time that the alleged offending occurred. There may be many reasons why a party does not make a contemporaneous report regarding family violence and an ongoing relationship with the alleged abuser is one such explanation.

    14. I appreciate that no charges may be laid against the father. If charges are laid, those charges may not proceed. Even if charges do proceed in the criminal courts, the father will be defending the charges and he is innocent until proven guilty. However the evidence before me, while untested, raises real concerns at this time. I conclude that the mother’s allegations of family violence are of such seriousness that it would not be in X’s best interests that he return to live in the (omitted) region. I am not satisfied that the father is an appropriate primary caregiver for X at this time, given the serious allegations of violence, nor should the Court impose any implicit expectation upon the mother that she must accompany X back to the region.

    This sums up the approach of FCCA judges that I have witnessed that I would label dad haters.

    How exactly does a falsely accused possibly get to "focus their attention" when from the very first hearing they are judged as guilty until proven otherwise, severe supervised contact is ordered & they are acutely supervised by a staff member with pen & paper no more than 2 meters away during these visits that is woefully too short & not frequent enough.
    No it isn't good enough to apply a " better safe than sorry " approach when you are the falsely accused. It certainly isn't good enough that after a year/21 visits/4 reports later that surprise surprise not a hair out of place regards dads conduct/parental skills/alleged violent unconscionable violent streak there is not a single harsh word spoken to the false accuser just robbed the child of a years memories with a loving dad even as more concerning details have emerged regarding the "victim" in this time.
    If this supposed revamp of Family Law fails to close this absurdity of a loophole & gets serious with KNOWN false accusers by instant forfeiture of both parental rights as well as rights to live within society it will do nothing to stem the flow towards another generation of kids a future government will have one last perverse " you don't mean a f*ck " moment & televise a nations apology to the massive amount of poor kids who were forced to un-love a father as tptb cocked up the whole handling of what is a public menace, a false reporting pest, a con woman & ultimately a vile child abuser with twisted logic such as denying a child from loving & being loved due to their warped ideals on love.
    Pedo's set out to intentionally satisfy only their own gratification receptors & are unable or unwilling or both to comprehend the undeniable fact that their instigated behavior/action has consequences for an innocent human being unable to adequately alter that unwanted situation.
    They chemically castrate some of this filth as they say the urges are unable to be contained-hence they are sick & in a sense partially less an owner of the behaviors/actions attached to them.
    What do we do with false accusers that intentionally set out to satisfy only themselves & destroy an ex partners relationship with a child they profess to love infinitely ?
    When detected there is no emotional castration of an involuntary behavior/action . We pander to them & give them what they set out to immorally gain, full exclusive rights to raise a child they love so much they force them to mentally kill off loving memories of loving harmless blood line & the very half to the reality that they now exist .
    I'm done with this perverse Muppet show government who fail to see the connection between violence, suicide, no contact orders & CSA rape of an already destroyed man who does in fact want to be in child's life but apparently the mental functioning of a spiteful woman proven to be more repugnant in actions than a dirty pedo & who's actions same gov. empowered, aided & abetted setting up eventual " status quo " " hands are tied orders".
    Is it just me or is failing to draw & quarter in public squares ANY parent who devalues their own child by falsely accusing the other parent & preferring to endorse such abusive vile acts by then granting the wish of complete ostracisation topped off with an ability to financially rape & punish that ex partner further by way of bat sh*t crazy CSA laws..........
    Isn't that similar logic to " well you dirty sicko pedo. you are a filthy reprehensible cockroach & you're busted.......but seeing as you've already fu*ked that kid up , you may as well just keep the kid for yourself and carry on your way & in fact we will sort sh*t out so as you can reap financial benefits from your disgusting abusive conduct of another human being, a human being that is a separate entity to you & a human being unfortunate enough to stroll into your life path ?
    Ultimately both child abusers at the end of the day? Yes ???

    " No harm done " " better to be safe than sorry ". Are you kidding ??
     
Loading...

Share This Page

Loading...
gt;