VIC Supervised Visits- Vaccination- Legal representation

[Ashe81]

Hello everyone,



I have a couple of questions regarding family court interim orders that were set on the 4/10/21.



I don’t want to sound unappreciative of the representation or of the courts time, but the dial in/video link system in place currently leaves a lot to be desired and I am of the opinion that there is a lot the judge misses because of it.

So in saying that I would much appreciate some guidance as I feel like I was somewhat blind sighted at the hearing from both his and my legal representatives.



In March of this year it was ordered that my ex who had not seen our three children (now 14, 12, 8) in 2.5 years due to DV, resume contact via a supervised access centre. This took place every second Saturday for 1 hour until July.

In that time there were still issues such as the father calling/texting outside of the court orders allocated times, snide comments about me/partner/family, parentafication (legal, parenting responsibilities, sending herbal medications to kids) false accusations, lying on affidavits, not supplying psych reports etc etc.



On the 4/10 there was little communication from my barrister with me. I had wanted the supervised access to continue at a contact centre due to the issues listed above, I could prove all of it.

The father wanted contact to move to substantial attendance with two of his friends (unknown to children or me). Each friend to oversee 1 week and the other the next.

My barrister advised me that this would be considered preferable by the court and if I didn’t agree I would be seen as being difficult by the judge.

She also said the court wouldn’t allow changeover at a police station and agreed to MacDonald change over.

She then agreed that I would not have my partner with me because the father claims he doesn’t like him (they’ve never met) and it could cause conflict in front of the children.

I told her I didn’t agree with that situation, I shouldn’t be made to be anywhere alone/unsupported with him due to a long history or DV.

But when I received the orders my barrister had agreed to the above anyway.



I reluctantly agreed stupidly it seems (only to the substantial attendance) presuming that it would be the same day/time as before, just moved to a different setting. This was not the case, without consulting me any further than above, my barrister agreed to 10-5.30 every Sunday, the judge changed it to 10-3.30 every Sunday.

My barrister never checked with me to see if we had pre-existing commitments, work hours, sports etc or to see if we were okay with just coming out of lockdown and yet now not able to go away for a weekend or over the Christmas break.



My barrister didn’t bother to put safety measures into this new order such as no alcohol or drugs to be consumed by either the father or supervisor.

She also refused to request the immunisation status of the supervisors, which I asked her to do. She said that I could only expect them to be vaccinated if I was.



I emailed my lawyer 2 weeks ago requesting information surrounding the requirements of supervisors such as:



Would I be provided with the supervisors

contact details?

Do they have my contact details?

Do the supervisors have to work within a court provided framework, how do they know what would be considered inappropriate, when should they contact someone or cease visitation etc etc?

What are the consequences for not reporting issues if needed?



I have had no response.



It has since come to light that one of the supervisors is not a friend but a girl friend.

Is that considered suitable by the court?

How does the court expect someone in an intimate relationship with the father and is unknown to myself and children to stay impartial and 100% child focused?



On the Dhhs website regarding mandatory Covid vaccination requirements it states that people fulfilling any care based role whether it be paid or voluntary, including self employed, that are working anywhere outside of their home are required to be vaccinated.

It is the employers responsibility to check vaccination status for all paid and voluntary roles that are required on site or field based (especially for those entering someone else’s home) Self employed/contractors fall under employers responsibility.



Question:

If the court has ruled to engaged two volunteers for supervision (care based role) Is it the courts responsibility to ensure their vaccination status?
Would this situation make the court technically an employer?

Or does it fall under the self employed criteria and the supervisors should ensure their vaccination record is provided to the court or myself?

Should they not attend their voluntary role if they are unvaccinated?

Question 2

Speaking generally was my barrister correct in her advice and negotiations?

Should I be looking for a new lawyer?


Thanks in advance for any opinions, have a great weekend!



Regards Ashe

 

[Docupedia]

I can’t answer question 1, but in terms of question 2:

- I doubt you’ll get anyone with a legal background here willing to second guess a barrister who has more knowledge of the relevant facts and history of the case. That being said, if you have specific instructions and were ignored then that is a cause for concern. Barristers have some latitude in how they present the case, but these should be addressed and ironed out beforehand. Unless it is a direct brief, you will have a solicitor who instructs the barrister (the solicitor is the barrister’s client, not you per se). That solicitor should be conveying your instructions and addressing concerns - I’d direct your issues to them first and ask for an explanation. If it’s a direct brief, then your concerns should addressed direct to the barrister. Poor communication and failure to discuss the suitability of instructions is unsatisfactory.

- Try the above first. Swapping legal representation in mid-action is able to be done, but your new representatives will need to ‘get up to speed’ and that will cost you. However, if you are not satisfied with the job your current representatives are doing and they’re not willing to address your concerns, then it may be more detrimental and costly to stay with them. Ultimately, you are the client and they are there to serve your interests (second only to their duties to the court and the law, generally).

 

[sammy01]

Are you vaccinated? See something grabed me about what you said about vaccines. You want to know if they're all vaccinated? but you're not prepared to tell them if you're vaccinated? It seems to me that (maybe) you expect others to get the jab, but not you?
Regardless, your post kinda reads like someone who is desperate to find a reason to stop dad seeing the kids.
Can't be his girlfriend, must be impartial, what about drugs, alcohol, vaccinated, contact details, police station for drop offs blah blah blah...

The reason why your solicitor hasnt responded is because all of this is trivial. You actually, just might have a good solicitor/ WHY? Well by not responding they're not charging you $$$. They're saving you $$...

My advice - Take a chill pill, and get the jab. But seriously, take a chill pill. The judge order 10-3.30. .. So your barrister could see that was going to be the case and supervised visits at a contact centre didn't need to continue. Dad asked for 'substantial' time. That in itself indicates the was wanting more time with the kids. 'SUBSTANTIAL'. No other way of understanding that word. But the judge ORDERED the time. The barrister was playing along because as you mentioned it would not look good if you were to insist on supervision at a contact centre to continue... It would make you look like you're trying to obstruct dad's attempts to re-build his relationship with the kids - Which is kinda what is it looks like from your post.

Now the judge isn't interested in your work/hobbies. The judge expects you to move your life around to accomodate the kids seeing their dad.

Now as to the vaccine question - Look, they're not employed by the courts in any capacity. So what I mean is that if I 'volunteer' at the local soccer club to coach kids, I have to get a working with children check. The soccer club would have insurance that I could claim against if I was injured due to neglect - Let's say a football post falls and hits me, for example.... But when it comes to 'supervisors' in this context - there is no employer. Hell, if you want to argue that point then YOU should be the one who has to take out the insurance policy to protect the 'volunteer' because YOU are the person insisting that there is a 'supervisor'. Shouldn't they be trained? by who? at whose expense? your's? See for them to be impartial, they would really need do some training and be be someone who doesn't even know the dad. Surely, any 'friend' is going to have a bit of bias in the direction of their friend.... So look, i think the vaccination status is irrelevant. There are unvaccinated people out there and as long as they are playing by the rules that apply to unvaccinated people in your state then it is a non-issue - That said, with nearly 70% of people vaccinated, it is a fair chance they've had the jab and this is just another example of you looking for road blocks. Hey - you came here looking for advice - That is what you're getting....

Now changing solicitors? yep can be done. Generally a bad idea. And I'd argue it is a bad idea in this instance. Why? well barrister hasn't been incompetent. He read the scenario pretty well. It looks like the judge was never gonna oppose ending contact centre visits, so your barrister offered something that was basically what the judge was gonna order anyways. Barrister did a good job. Sure, there is a whole lota stuff that you wanted - intoxification, drugs, contact details, vaccine status.... blah blah blah.

So to prove my point - Let's look at the drug /alcohol issue. We work on the assumption that most punters are not drunk or stoned at 10am. But even if he was - how to prove it? Do you expect him to blow into a breath analysis machine? Are you going to supply the machine? Or is it enough that if you 'suspect' he may be under the influence then you are entitled to keep the kids? See again, this comes down to common sense. If I was dropping my kids off with anyone and I saw a car full of empty beer bottles and the pungent scent of pot in the air AND the person I was dropping the kids with had slurred speech and couldn't walk in a straight THEN i would not leave my kids in that person's care because it would not be safe to do so....

BUT what we have with your post a whole lot of BUT.... But it turns out it is his girlfriend.... BUT what if I wanna go away for a week (you can btw - You can go from Sunday to Sunday) OR you can ask dad - Hey dad, do you mind if we change Sunday to Monday and to sweeten the deal, since it is school holidays, why not have the kids for an additional 5 hours on the Tuesday after we get back. wow that was easy.... So my advice - Take a chill pill. Seriously and respectfully. See this stuff is stressful. That stress often clouds our judgement. Now you've mentioned a history of DV etc... So you're entitled to be stressed.

Final thought - I've been there. Well kinda - My ex was doing all she could to minimise my contact with my kids. But the whole court thing is stressful. You're out of your depth. The obvious thing to do is to try and make sure there are clear rules. But life isn't like that. s**t happens and the more you try and control the situation the worse it is gonna get for you....

So just outa interest - Have you been vaccinated?

 

[Ashe81]

Are you vaccinated? See something grabed me about what you said about vaccines. You want to know if they're all vaccinated? but you're not prepared to tell them if you're vaccinated? It seems to me that (maybe) you expect others to get the jab, but not you?
Regardless, your post kinda reads like someone who is desperate to find a reason to stop dad seeing the kids.
Can't be his girlfriend, must be impartial, what about drugs, alcohol, vaccinated, contact details, police station for drop offs blah blah blah...

The reason why your solicitor hasnt responded is because all of this is trivial. You actually, just might have a good solicitor/ WHY? Well by not responding they're not charging you $$$. They're saving you $$...

My advice - Take a chill pill, and get the jab. But seriously, take a chill pill. The judge order 10-3.30. .. So your barrister could see that was going to be the case and supervised visits at a contact centre didn't need to continue. Dad asked for 'substantial' time. That in itself indicates the was wanting more time with the kids. 'SUBSTANTIAL'. No other way of understanding that word. But the judge ORDERED the time. The barrister was playing along because as you mentioned it would not look good if you were to insist on supervision at a contact centre to continue... It would make you look like you're trying to obstruct dad's attempts to re-build his relationship with the kids - Which is kinda what is it looks like from your post.

Now the judge isn't interested in your work/hobbies. The judge expects you to move your life around to accomodate the kids seeing their dad.

Now as to the vaccine question - Look, they're not employed by the courts in any capacity. So what I mean is that if I 'volunteer' at the local soccer club to coach kids, I have to get a working with children check. The soccer club would have insurance that I could claim against if I was injured due to neglect - Let's say a football post falls and hits me, for example.... But when it comes to 'supervisors' in this context - there is no employer. Hell, if you want to argue that point then YOU should be the one who has to take out the insurance policy to protect the 'volunteer' because YOU are the person insisting that there is a 'supervisor'. Shouldn't they be trained? by who? at whose expense? your's? See for them to be impartial, they would really need do some training and be be someone who doesn't even know the dad. Surely, any 'friend' is going to have a bit of bias in the direction of their friend.... So look, i think the vaccination status is irrelevant. There are unvaccinated people out there and as long as they are playing by the rules that apply to unvaccinated people in your state then it is a non-issue - That said, with nearly 70% of people vaccinated, it is a fair chance they've had the jab and this is just another example of you looking for road blocks. Hey - you came here looking for advice - That is what you're getting....

Now changing solicitors? yep can be done. Generally a bad idea. And I'd argue it is a bad idea in this instance. Why? well barrister hasn't been incompetent. He read the scenario pretty well. It looks like the judge was never gonna oppose ending contact centre visits, so your barrister offered something that was basically what the judge was gonna order anyways. Barrister did a good job. Sure, there is a whole lota stuff that you wanted - intoxification, drugs, contact details, vaccine status.... blah blah blah.

So to prove my point - Let's look at the drug /alcohol issue. We work on the assumption that most punters are not drunk or stoned at 10am. But even if he was - how to prove it? Do you expect him to blow into a breath analysis machine? Are you going to supply the machine? Or is it enough that if you 'suspect' he may be under the influence then you are entitled to keep the kids? See again, this comes down to common sense. If I was dropping my kids off with anyone and I saw a car full of empty beer bottles and the pungent scent of pot in the air AND the person I was dropping the kids with had slurred speech and couldn't walk in a straight THEN i would not leave my kids in that person's care because it would not be safe to do so....

BUT what we have with your post a whole lot of BUT.... But it turns out it is his girlfriend.... BUT what if I wanna go away for a week (you can btw - You can go from Sunday to Sunday) OR you can ask dad - Hey dad, do you mind if we change Sunday to Monday and to sweeten the deal, since it is school holidays, why not have the kids for an additional 5 hours on the Tuesday after we get back. wow that was easy.... So my advice - Take a chill pill. Seriously and respectfully. See this stuff is stressful. That stress often clouds our judgement. Now you've mentioned a history of DV etc... So you're entitled to be stressed.

Final thought - I've been there. Well kinda - My ex was doing all she could to minimise my contact with my kids. But the whole court thing is stressful. You're out of your depth. The obvious thing to do is to try and make sure there are clear rules. But life isn't like that. s**t happens and the more you try and control the situation the worse it is gonna get for you....

So just outa interest - Have you been vaccinated?

Hi Sammy01

Thank you for putting so much effort into your response.

Yes I am vaccinated, I am a nurse.
The father is an anti vaccination natural therapies practitioner. Who for the last 18months had been via text message to the children, flaunting his wonderful “no rules apply to me” lifestyle of him breaking covid directions almost daily.

In the child inclusive conference 2 of my kids said they didn’t want unsupervised visits, one saying “dad would probably just be drunk like usual”. When the father was having contact previously both kids at different times have had to undergo surgery due to injuries caused by his intoxicated neglect or lack of supervision.
Incarcerated for multiple IVO breaches, suicide attempt, drink driving, near drownings, dhs found him to be a person of harm to his step son and daughter and had multiple reports for his biological children as well.

I still pick up the pieces of the damage he has caused on a daily basis.
That is the reason I was raising the questions.

I was hoping to find some genuine guidance out of concern for my kids, but thank you for presuming I am just another vindictive mother who has nothing better to do with my time and who is out to impede the happiness of all.

Cheers

 

[sammy01]

Hey my mistake on the jab... But you wrote "She said that I could only expect them to be vaccinated if I was." That does invite me to think that you you're not vaccinated and your some kind of crazy anti-vaxer. true?

And your post does read like someone doing their best to avoid dad seeing the kids. You alluded to DV - but dv accusation occur in the majority of family law matters. Avo's are now accepted as just part of the family law landscape. Indeed, if your original post had outlined that the kids had been hospitalized while with dad and that he was a peson of harm to his step son and daughter - that may have changed the nature of my advice - I can only respond based on the info provided... Frankly, that is bloody important information. Begs the question why you didn't mention it earlier?

Look - much of my advice stays the same. Vaccnination status - nope - not relevant. I reckon it should be - after all as a teacher - i can't go to work without having the jab -seems reasonable the same should apply here. But I don't make the rules, so nope not relevant.Gonna be interesting when it is time to go back to court. If court is on site - not video linked - I doubt he will get into the building... But not relevant as far as your assertion that the volunteers are employed by the courts... There - I answered your question.

Same about the barrister - look, it is gonna cost you heaps to change and I don't think the barrister did anything other than read the scenario and offer something along the lines of what the judge would have ordered. Again, answered your question.

Now as far as the kid's comments "dad would probably just be drunk". Hey that is their lived history. Dad has some serious effort to put in here. Sounds like he has been a right twit. The fact that after 2.5 yrs he has applied to court invites us to think maybe he's a changed man.... Look you did write "In March of this year it was ordered that my ex who had not seen our three children (now 14, 12, 8) in 2.5 years due to DV, resume contact via a supervised access centre." I wont worry you too much with the problem I have with that statement - unless you're telling me a court ordered no contact for 2.5 yrs???. But my point is this - dad has done the contact centre. The relevant authorities have accepted that he isn't a risk and extended unsupervised time is appropriate. I understand that is going to be hard for you given your lived history but not worth sacking your barrister about.

I failed to address the desire for drop offs to be at the police station - Which I kinda understand your perspective - So let me explain. Police stations have an implication - Crime... GUILTY... etc. Normal people don't meet at the cop shop. Maccas has become a preferred option BUT you fear dv... Well - has he been violent in the last 6 months? I"m guessing not, the courts don't put people in a situation where they're likely to be harmed. But look, even then, police stations don't get used for drop offs. One reason is that family law is federal legislation, where everything to do with the police is state based law. There are heaps of complex reasons why cops shops don't get used. The barrister didn't ask the judge, because the barrister knew it wasn't gonna happen. Simple.

So - I didnt assume you're a 'vindictive mother who has nothing better to do with my time and who is out to impede the happiness of all." I did say your post kinda looks like someone trying to keep the kids from their dad.... It does read that way. Go on, have a read of your first post - Be impartial. And i definately didn't accuse you of being 'another vindictive mother who has nothing better to do with my time and who is out to impede the happiness of all." I did say take a chill pill - good advice - I also made some comments about how this s**t is stressful and can cloud judgments - I was showing compassion. But hey that wasn't 'genuine guidance'? nor was my detailed and accurate advice on the covid jab and changing barristers? hm...

Look you came here looking for some advice - I still maintain the advice i gave was 'gunuine guidance' and the factual information i provided is correct. If you don't like some of the advice - Good. The best advice is the stuff you hate and just because you hate it doesn't mean it is wrong - It just might mean that you were wrong... Chill - I'm wrong heaps too.

So final thought - your post does read like someone trying to impede the kids relationship with their kids - Based on your response to my first post - you have some valid reasons. But in my experience - I've never had someone post something like - Hi I'm a nasty vindictive ex - can you help me punish my ex?" So, with that in mind. Your barrister said it would look good if you agree to end the contact centre visits. You were reluctant to do so. All of the protective measures (that do seem reasonable) such as meeting at the police station, having your partner present etc etc are do seem reasonable but they are actually deemed by the courts to be problematic, I've outlined the reason why the police station wasn't gonna happen. My advice is similar to the solicitors, it looks good to be complaint. It looks better to be the pro-active parent. It looks better to be the pro-active parent. YUP wrote it twice. You have heaps of good reasons to play nice. It will save you $$$. It will save you stress. It will help your cause as far as the way the judge is gonna look at this situation.

And absolute final thought - it is a bloody good idea to come here to ask questions. Even if you don't like the answers. So you could have asked the barrister or solicitor to explain why the drop off at the cop shop couldn't happen. They would have answered - the answer would have been similar to mine. But they would have charged you $$$.. Meanwhile. the advice you get here is free. Sure you don't have to like it. But don't dismiss it just because you don't like it.
cheers
sammy