Yes there's about 10 things You know, no sex with your children and it goes on like that.
Back to the point though. Parents should civilly work these things out together, not get a judge to be their adult
VIC Separating with Ex - Terrified of 50/50 Custody of Children
- Thread starter WAmum
- Start date
Back to the point though. Parents should civilly work these things out together, not get a judge to be their adult
Back to the point though. Parents should civilly work these things out together, not get a judge to be their adult
Yes, this would be ideal and fortunately only a small percentage of separated parents end up needing a Court determination made for them.
Of course it would be very naive of anyone to think that all couples could successfully do this on their own, especially where genuine violence or abuse have played a part in the relationship creating a very clear imbalance of power.
What you trying to say? Are you trying to make a civil case criminal?
If there any criminal activities then there'd be no reason to get a civil order. The judge would say come back after your criminal case finalizes.
Genuine violence or abuse, OMG that's pretty illegal stuff. Forget the custody stuff, get them charged immediately
They don't even allow this abuse in schools anymore, family courts would be mortified. Have they called the police?
I was talking about when there is no illegal stuff happening
If there any criminal activities then there'd be no reason to get a civil order. The judge would say come back after your criminal case finalizes.
Genuine violence or abuse, OMG that's pretty illegal stuff. Forget the custody stuff, get them charged immediately
They don't even allow this abuse in schools anymore, family courts would be mortified. Have they called the police?
I was talking about when there is no illegal stuff happening
Well I don't know what I have then. As I have orders for 100% custody/sole parental responsibilities.I ended up getting a 100% custody through Federal court (partner took off overseas). There is NO full custody now unless your partner is in prison, dead, or seriously (seriously) majorly bad, before that they have rights until the kids become adults. Be fully aware if you died (or went to prison) your Mom doesn't automatically get them, your (ex)partner does
What you trying to say? Are you trying to make a civil case criminal?
If there any criminal activities then there'd be no reason to get a civil order. The judge would say come back after your criminal case finalizes.
genuine violence or abuse, OMG that's pretty illegal stuff. Forget the custody stuff, get them charged immediately
They don't even allow this abuse in schools anymore, family courts would be mortified. Have they called the police?
I was talking about when there is NO illegal stuff happening
kimsland, I have no issue with anyone having an opinion.
What I have an issue with is people claiming 'facts' that are wholly untrue.
Your mere reference to matters needing to be criminal, to have any influence over the Courts decisions, is a very clear indication that you have no idea!
Violence and Abuse takes on a far wider definition in the Family Law Act than what you 'appear' to claim. The best interests if the child is the paramount consideration.
Not all no contact orders are a result of criminal charges of a parent and nor do they solely result from the limited issues that you have claimed they do in several threads here.
You only need look at those orders where a parent has been removed from a child's life due to psychological abuse of the child by the other parent (instilling fear in them about the other parent for no other reason but to stop that parent seeing the child) to know this. Where was the opportunity for these parents to negotiate?
Come back to me after you have done some proper research, or sooner, but I won't bother to responding to such nonsense again!
Very strange I was talking about the non-criminal aspect. I (and pretty sure any sane person) knows that family court matters do not have to be criminal. I see you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Ironically I would suspect that most family court matters would in fact bring up criminal activity of the other side, but I was not talking about this.
And now we are back to talking about criminal again? So now you are saying it is important? ("Your mere reference to matters needing to be criminal").
I think you are trying to say that yes the judge will most certainly take on any information criminal or otherwise, really? (sorry that was sarcastic).
And now we are back to not criminal? You need to make your mind up and stick with it. My information was about non-criminal as already stated, and you even mention here (so strange).
This seems to be the issue. You seem to have a concern with what is illegal (criminal) to what the courts take on as information only that may not have any charges involved.
Yes ironically all information helps. By the way if the other parent has say committed a crime and presently be charged! Pretty sure any Family Law judge will take this information on and likely give the 1st parent temporary custody until the criminal case is over. This seems blatantly obvious.
Regarding negotiating, this can still be done, even with violence involved psychological or not, since we are talking about the best interests of the child not the parent. ie If I were a judge the first thing I'd ask a battered partner (psychological or physical) is, have you had any communication since? A valid question.
Thank god, I could not put up with so many contradictions, but I'm still happy to point their errors out
Hey in a family court civil case about (best interests of the child) custody matters. BOTH parents have rights to argue their point. And temporary orders may be assigned if there are legal issues involved, actually you wouldn't even need a solicitor to debate this. On NON legal matters, custody should be 'negotiated' between the parents as much as possible. I hope all solicitors understand this? (doubtful).
@kimsland - I refer to and repeat my previous post!
To anyone else who is interested in learning and would like more accurate information...
1. A DVO is a civil proceeding (not criminal) unless charges are laid due to a breach of the order.
2. Child Abuse is defined in the Family Law Act 1975 at section 4(1)
3. Family Violence is defined in the Family Law Act 1975 at section 4AB.
4. Neither definitions at points 2 or 3 above restricts the Family Courts on making positive, or negative findings (if they are made) to 'criminal matters' and nor does it follow that if a positive finding is made, criminal charges will result. This is because in civil matters findings are made on the balance of probabilities.
As an example...
A parent can be found by the Family Court to be psychologically abusive of a child due to extreme alignment. However, while the Judge could certainly make orders for a 'reverse of residence' so to remove the child from the toxic parent (or as I mentioned in my last post, could make a no contact order for the non-abusive parent - in extreme cases where it is viewed the instilled fear/resistance of the child to seeing the non-abusive parent is too high - absolutely devastating for that non-abusive parent!), these findings while on appearance would 'appear criminal in nature' are not!
As one could quite rightly assume, a parent who is in such a position as the example above, would have very limited opportunities to negotiate with the other parent!
In reality, if they would have any chance to see their child, with limited options available to them, Court would likely be the best one or inevitable!
Being in jail or dead as some members have claimed here to be the only time parents have no contact orders made against them, simply is not true!
To anyone else who is interested in learning and would like more accurate information...
1. A DVO is a civil proceeding (not criminal) unless charges are laid due to a breach of the order.
2. Child Abuse is defined in the Family Law Act 1975 at section 4(1)
3. Family Violence is defined in the Family Law Act 1975 at section 4AB.
4. Neither definitions at points 2 or 3 above restricts the Family Courts on making positive, or negative findings (if they are made) to 'criminal matters' and nor does it follow that if a positive finding is made, criminal charges will result. This is because in civil matters findings are made on the balance of probabilities.
As an example...
A parent can be found by the Family Court to be psychologically abusive of a child due to extreme alignment. However, while the Judge could certainly make orders for a 'reverse of residence' so to remove the child from the toxic parent (or as I mentioned in my last post, could make a no contact order for the non-abusive parent - in extreme cases where it is viewed the instilled fear/resistance of the child to seeing the non-abusive parent is too high - absolutely devastating for that non-abusive parent!), these findings while on appearance would 'appear criminal in nature' are not!
As one could quite rightly assume, a parent who is in such a position as the example above, would have very limited opportunities to negotiate with the other parent!
In reality, if they would have any chance to see their child, with limited options available to them, Court would likely be the best one or inevitable!
Being in jail or dead as some members have claimed here to be the only time parents have no contact orders made against them, simply is not true!
MartyK I like your post. It was presented well and covered the points of concern fully.
The last part was having a go still, and probably wasn't required, but I can see the lead up that may have put you in that place. Although I still do not agree that the psychologically abusive of a child makes it a definite no go zone for that other parent, and that's where the negotiating would be. For instance it may be controlled visits with a social worker, for a prescribed ordered duration, with the option of going back to court after say 6 months or 1 year and re-negotiating the conditions.
By the way I'm totally against child abuse even the old fashioned discipline techniques, but I still do not feel the parent should have zero access to their child for it, hence why I wrote that now famous one liner you quoted.
Maybe I'd be too soft as an opinionated judge in the matter, but then again I've seen a lot of life and I can see where understanding and experience will not automatically throw one parent completely out of the picture, especially when mot being convicted of any crime.
It is so easy to say custody is only about the best interests of the child when parents do have rights and they should feel confident in knowing that in most cases the courts will not remove either parent, or both, especially on a permanent basis ever unless they are dead or in jail
Being able to live in opposite economical (regarding resource, financial and educational and specifically cultural) communities at different times in my life, I can confirm that parents who may seem to be deemed as psychologically abusive towards a child may be best left to a judge who understands the bigger picture. Families and communities are what make up our society, and only in confirmed abusive (therefore criminal) cases, judges should not completely remove parents from their children.
I do not require the definition of psychological abuse of a child provided to me btw. Unless of course you throw in the rights of loving parents
The last part was having a go still, and probably wasn't required, but I can see the lead up that may have put you in that place. Although I still do not agree that the psychologically abusive of a child makes it a definite no go zone for that other parent, and that's where the negotiating would be. For instance it may be controlled visits with a social worker, for a prescribed ordered duration, with the option of going back to court after say 6 months or 1 year and re-negotiating the conditions.
By the way I'm totally against child abuse even the old fashioned discipline techniques, but I still do not feel the parent should have zero access to their child for it, hence why I wrote that now famous one liner you quoted.
Maybe I'd be too soft as an opinionated judge in the matter, but then again I've seen a lot of life and I can see where understanding and experience will not automatically throw one parent completely out of the picture, especially when mot being convicted of any crime.
It is so easy to say custody is only about the best interests of the child when parents do have rights and they should feel confident in knowing that in most cases the courts will not remove either parent, or both, especially on a permanent basis ever unless they are dead or in jail
Being able to live in opposite economical (regarding resource, financial and educational and specifically cultural) communities at different times in my life, I can confirm that parents who may seem to be deemed as psychologically abusive towards a child may be best left to a judge who understands the bigger picture. Families and communities are what make up our society, and only in confirmed abusive (therefore criminal) cases, judges should not completely remove parents from their children.
I do not require the definition of psychological abuse of a child provided to me btw. Unless of course you throw in the rights of loving parents
I do not disagree with a lot of your opinions about better alternatives to the complete removal of a parent kimsland. In some cases, what you state as an alternative solution, is certainly something that does happen (or similar). Unfortunately, when it comes to the Courts and their determinations, personal opinions hold very little weight, as the law must be followed.
The harsh reality is in Family Law, parents have no rights, only the children do, and the best interests of the child/ren, which is the paramount consideration according to the law (Family Law Act 1975 section 60CA), is the overarching principle in all parenting matters. Based on all of the facts before the Court, the best interests of the child is whatever the Judge determines it to be.
But yes, fortunately in most cases, unless the court deems it appropriate given all of the facts before them, parents are not completely removed from a child's life.
The harsh reality is in Family Law, parents have no rights, only the children do, and the best interests of the child/ren, which is the paramount consideration according to the law (Family Law Act 1975 section 60CA), is the overarching principle in all parenting matters. Based on all of the facts before the Court, the best interests of the child is whatever the Judge determines it to be.
But yes, fortunately in most cases, unless the court deems it appropriate given all of the facts before them, parents are not completely removed from a child's life.