VIC Sole Parental Responsibility - don’t give up! It is possible!

[sammy01]

Charles - Child support is still payable by a parent who has lost their parental responsibility.

When reading family law cases. To me, the truly sad ones are the cases where one parent is a very good parent with one flaw. The flaw is they have done such a good job of alienating the other parent that the child would be traumatized if they had to spend time with the other parent. And because the primary carer is a good parent in all other respects the judge has decided the kid should remain with the primary carer and not spend time with the other parent because to do so would further traumatize the child.

 

[GlassHalfFull]

Yeah, agreed Sammy. In any normal circumstance, playing games with the child's relationship with the father should and would be punished, but in the child-centric world of family law, punishments are rare. Punishments, even if with the best of intentions attempting to curtail a parent's bad behaviour would often affect the children just as much (financial penalties, reduction of time with the child etc), which is why judges tend to let a lot of bad behaviour go IMO.

I don't dispute that children's interests should be front and centre in any dispute, but I do think that greater disincentives for bad behaviour would be great. Perhaps more warning shots across the bow from judges early on in the process could help. At the moment, it seems like in most lengthy cases, judges tend to sit back, listen quietly to all the evidence over a period of months and years and ONLY if and when it progresses to a trial will a judge actually start judging! By then, a lot of damage is often allowed to take place.

 

[krylek]

Wow. I’m stunned.

1. The judge decided there was no alienation. As did the family report writer, that ILC and various medical professionals.

2. The judge decided both the mother, and the child were victims of abuse from the father. The family report writer and medical professionals also agreed with this. The ILC supported this.

3. I was not the applicant in the case. The judge / family report writer / ILC also agreed I had tried to facilitate a relationship between father and child UNTIL the fathers actions made that impossible, and unsafe for both child and mother.

4. The father made his application as a campaign of terror against us, due to his fury at CSA. Thank goodness that the ILC, Family report writer, my lawyers and the judge saw the evidence, (which you have not), and decided to protect this child.

The assumptions here are sickening. The accusations are disgusting. Absolutely horrific. You should be ashamed. A bunch of angry, uneducated, bullying men.

 

[krylek]

In 14 years he hadn’t paid child support. Despite being incredibly wealthy. Why would he start now? He’s been ordered by courts to pay but he won’t. You hope he doesn’t have to pay?

I’ve put myself through uni, been a young, single mum. Raised a child with additional needs on my own, paid for 100% of her expenses, worked up to 7 days a week, bough a house ... all by myself. All for her.

and her father pays for nothing, drags us through courts for years, threatens us both due to the CSA debt ... and you deasbeats hope he doesn’t have to pay? You are disgusting.

 

[sammy01]

OR - we are responding to what you wrote....
" It was unusual in that the parent we were up against, from did not have drug or alcohol issues. The other parent is not a criminal. The other parent had no (diagnosed) mental health disorders." Oh so we give advice based on that...

Then at 5.53pm you throw in some other information. Did you say in your first post that dad was abusive? nope... And no we have not seen the evidence... All we have is the information that you give us. So next time you wanna come here and post. I'd recommend you give us adequate details with which to respond. Or don't post.

We can only respond / give opinions based on the information you provided.... Initially the information you provided stated that dad had no issues and yet you'd managed to remove him from the child's life. Other punters could come across your post and reasonably assume that they could do the same. Can you not see how your first post would give a parent reason to belive they could get the same result against a dad who has done nothing wrong? common sense really, because in your first post you didn't say that dad did anything wrong.

Frankly your first post reads like someone gloating at removing dad from the kid's life for no good reason. Read it again, did you say dad has issues? nope. Hmmm. So yep we're uneducated because YOU didn't educate us. you dind't give us the details with which to respond.

And nope I didn't state that dad shouldn't pay child support. I answered a question posted by someone else. Dad does still have to pay child support. But here is the thing. Just a moral question for you... If you're prepared to remove the child from the child's life in every other respect (and you are) then why are you still prepared to accept child support? Bit hypocritical? He is still dad for financial purposes but not for any other purpose?

Seriously, why come here and gloat about removing a dad from a kid's life when most of the posts here are blokes who are being deprived access to their kids?
$100 000? I hope the kid goes and finds dad when she is 21.

Serioulsy why waste out time with half of the info?

 

[Atticus]

Frankly your first post reads like someone gloating at removing dad from the kid's life for no good reason.

I agree .... You made a point of the fact that despite the father having no issues, you had nevertheless 'succeeded' in removing him from the picture entirely.

There have been 5 people comment on your thread (not all men) & not one has a good thing to say ....

The whole premise that all it takes is a barrow full of money, some top notch lawyers & persistence to get a no contact order with SPR is misleading ..... To suggest to other parents that it's possible if you spend enough money is irresponsible & stupid ....

 

[Bobby123]

Wow. I’m stunned.

1. The judge decided there was no alienation. As did the family report writer, that ILC and various medical professionals.

2. The judge decided both the mother, and the child were victims of abuse from the father. The family report writer and medical professionals also agreed with this. The ILC supported this.

3. I was not the applicant in the case. The judge / family report writer / ILC also agreed I had tried to facilitate a relationship between father and child UNTIL the fathers actions made that impossible, and unsafe for both child and mother.

4. The father made his application as a campaign of terror against us, due to his fury at CSA. Thank goodness that the ILC, Family report writer, my lawyers and the judge saw the evidence, (which you have not), and decided to protect this child.

The assumptions here are sickening. The accusations are disgusting. Absolutely horrific. You should be ashamed. A bunch of angry, uneducated, bullying men.

Hi
Not sure why everyone is having a go at you .
He should be paying child support
And a judge would never award sole parenting unless he had no other option, hence your matter would have been serious . Don't listen to people on here , it's obviously been a hard time for you and it's good you got the best out come for yourself and your child
I wish you all the best

 

[GlassHalfFull]

Hi
Not sure why everyone is having a go at you .
He should be paying child support
And a judge would never award sole parenting unless he had no other option, hence your matter would have been serious . Don't listen to people on here , it's obviously been a hard time for you and it's good you got the best out come for yourself and your child
I wish you all the best

I think the main reason people are having a go is because of the gloating. There may well have been some legitimate reasons for seeking sole parental responsibility. We don't know the full story. But we do also know that you can achieve a lot in family court if you spend a lot of money and the other party is unrepresented and doesn't have the same resources.

Justice isn't always done when there is a lack of parity in representation. Judges will usually only make decisions about issues that are in dispute and if one parent isn't able to articulate their position clearly, the other side might 'win' by default. Regardless, it's a sad conclusion when a parent is excluded from parenting, even if with good reason.

 

[Bobby123]

I think the main reason people are having a go is because of the gloating. There may well have been some legitimate reasons for seeking sole parental responsibility. We don't know the full story. But we do also know that you can achieve a lot in family court if you spend a lot of money and the other party is unrepresented and doesn't have the same resources.

Justice isn't always done when there is a lack of parity in representation. Judges will usually only make decisions about issues that are in dispute and if one parent isn't able to articulate their position clearly, the other side might 'win' by default. Regardless, it's a sad conclusion when a parent is excluded from parenting, even if with good reason.

Ok yes I see your point , if the other parent couldn't afford it etc than yes that's not fair but can I ask you what if they really were being abused if in fact that was true , do you think he still has a right than

 

[GlassHalfFull]

Obviously if actual abuse was taking place then of course the parent should be restricted in their contact and responsibility in some way. We just don't know the full story in this case. We can have an opinion on the way she expressed her thoughts though. I thought it was a bit distasteful. Ultimately we should always try to do what is in the child or children's best interests.