NSW Will Family Court Give Unsupervised Visitation to Alcoholic Father?

[sammy01]

So I'm going to challenge both of your thinking. Let me start with Complex16, you wrote, "You're all your child has so fight the good fight..."

So, here is where you're wrong. The child has a mother and a father - So, nope, you are not all the child has. The child has a dad and you are the one stopping that relationship. And the rhetoric of fighting the good fight is just that rhetoric. So let me ask you this - when the magistrate says he is gonna take the kid off you and give dad primary care, are you gonna keep fighting the 'good fight'?

My ex did - she now sees her kids for about 70 nights a year. I don't speak to her much anymore, but do you think she regrets insisting I was dangerous despite all of the evidence that contradicted her assertions? Did she really fight the good fight?

Now Andrea - you should be celebrating his reduced drinking according to the court ordered testing system. He has made an effort. And the fact that your friend saw him on a bender the next day is not evidence - it is hearsay. Same as you suspecting he 'manipulated the test'. This is the language of paranoia.

Sorry, if my words are unkind, but they are true... You can't manipulate these tests. He isn't Lance Armstrong... There is no way the courts would rely on these tests if they were that easy to manipulate. That is just common sense and the court isn't going to accept you standing there and telling the magistrate, "but he manipulated the test".

Now guess what, neither of you have mentioned the single most important thing - that dad has damaged the kid. Nothing. Yep, might be a crazy alcoholic, but that is your opinion. Yep, you know the person well and your opinion is probably correct, but in court if you wanna maintain that rhetoric, then you need to expect that the magistrate and his solicitors will tear you apart.

Different if the cops had to be called because he was that drunk who fell asleep outside the child care centre and forgot to pick up the kids and hence the cops were called, but as you have not mentioned it, then it ain't the case.

I wish you both well. I also hope the children get to have a meaningful relationship with their fathers and I strongly encourage their fathers to continue with the court process - because my understanding of the current court system is that dads are gonna get more time with their kids via a magistrate than via mediation. Don't believe me?

Have a read:

Family Matters - Issue 88 - Shared care time | Australian Institute of Family Studies

Especially this bit:

"A key question, then, is whether the increase in shared care time applies more to consent cases than judicially determined cases. In fact, the data suggest that a greater increase in shared care time has occurred for judicially determined cases than for those in which parents reach agreement by consent."

So that means that shared care happened more through court than through mediation, so the courts clearly actively encourage shared care. Now you came hear looking for help / opinion - so to summarise (and you're not gonna like it):

1 - Primary carers who consistently put obstacles in front of the other parent to hinder access can at times find themselves without the child and or / the child lives with the other parent and spends minimal time with the problem parent (you) as my case shows.

2 - Shared care or very similar to shared care is the preferred course of action for the courts - as shown in the reliable link I've provided.

My thinking - you came here for thoughts / opinions based on your situation, I provided that. I'm not a solicitor, but I've read so many case notes that I reckon I'm at least a little bit educated on how this stuff works. Feel free to keep arguing with me, the ex, the legal system... Or start playing a bit smarter.

So how to do that?

Find an agreement somewhere in-between what you want and what he wants. Why? Well, he'll get better than that in court. So don't waste your money, and most importantly - clearly these men want to be dads. They want to be part of their kids' lives. (If they were the waste of space that you have claimed, then they would never have put the energy into making a court application. They would have been too drunk to bother).

But also understand the law does protect you. There are options available if verbal abuse continues. Talk to the local cops about that one, but please do it as a last resort and don't abuse it as a strategy in family law. That is plain nasty and to be honest, in my experience, it will mess your case up.

Rant over

 

[sammy01]

My kids are with their mum this week - so I have some spare time...

So, I had a quick look at the family law court data base for cases to help show the consequences when one parent refuses reasonable access to the other parent. Now I'm not saying that is what you're doing - I'm not here to judge, but if a court deems that is what you're doing then parenting can get reversed. It happens and it happens often.

Read some cases:
Helbig & Rowe and Ors [2016] FamCAFC 117 (6 July 2016)
and
Langley & Bramble [2010] FamCAFC 34 (1 March 2010)

Oh, and sometimes, the court orders the mother to pay the father's costs (legal fees) like in the case above.

I especially encourage you to read this one because it is a case where the mother accused the father of being an alcoholic and being abusive...
Fiordan & Reesa [2013] FamCA 329 (12 April 2013)

Not only do the kids live with dad, but dad has sole parental responsibility. So mum basically had all her legal rights as a parent removed from her.

Now to be fair:
Molloy & Turner [2013] FamCA 587 (19 July 2013)

Here is a case where the court accepted dad had an 'substantial' substance abuse problem and ordered contact centre visits only. But this bloke clearly had a severe drug problem, and had refused treatment.

So, yep supervised visits for drug dependent people happen, I grant you that, but when you look into the details of this case, we are talking about hard core drugs. He also took the kid and didn't return him, refused treatment, etc etc. So a hell of a long way from what you're talking.

Your ex has a job right? Pays child support right? The court is gonna say, "Hey if he can keep down a job well enough to pay child support then he must be doing well enough", and that is gonna be a hard argument to counter.

 

[NDM0808]

My mother was an alcoholic. It killed her eventually. My father worked long hours and spent weekends on his boat to pretty much avoid her and took me with him whenever he could. They were still together (although slept in separate bedrooms and rarely spoke) and we lived in a small country town. I was sent to boarding school as a teenager, which I hated, but as my father can now say, it was for my own protection.

I am a 47-year-old woman now and let me tell you the scars of growing up with an alcoholic still run deep. My mother put me in incredibly dangerous situations - she drank from the moment she woke til she passed out at night. She never thought anything of driving with me in the car, when caught shoplifting alcohol and we were taken off to the local police station, she viciously told me that if I told my father, she would make my life a living hell. She was never there at any of my primary school stuff, my friends never wanted to come over. I often had to cook meals and clean the house. She was emotionally abusive. I have never been able to forgive her and quite frankly was relived when she died as I could finally be free of her.

So, here is my thoughts on Family Law and the child's right to have a meaningful relationship with both parents. Define meaningful. Because, my experience with an alcoholic parent, my relationship with my mother was far from meaningful and did a lot of damage to me psychologically. If my mother had admitted to her disease, and sought help, I may have been able to forgive her but until the day she died she refused to believe there was anything wrong with her.

If Family Court continues to insist that children have a very active relationship with a parent (mother or father) that has alcohol, drug or mental health issues then the Gov't best start investing in counselling programs for these children when they get older because they will need it.

I am not for one minute suggesting that said children should not have a relationship with these parents - but there needs to be a lot of care and consideration given to the extent of it.

My own child hasn't seen her father since March. I am not keeping her from him (there are no orders) - he has walked away and she, at 12, is old enough to know her own mind and not bother to try and have a relationship. He rarely answers his phone and when he does, all he does is tell her he is sorry that he was a terrible dad and then tells her that it is not all his fault, he is not a bad person and that I am keeping him from her.

He was absent, addicted and never put his child first or even second. I might add, his first child who is nearly 18 doesn't have a relationship with him either. If Family Court don't think kids notice this, then they are fooling themselves. Both of his children have been in counselling for some time and both are doing a lot better without him in their lives. I do insist my daughter write to him and send him photos though.

If Family Court were to insist she spend time with him - I feel it would psychologically be more damaging that beneficial to her. Thankfully, he will never go down the Court road - quite frankly he couldn't be bothered and even with his first child, he only ever wanted access so that he didn't have to pay as much - he never did anything with him - just told him how crap his mother was and left him with me.

So in my opinion, based on my own experience, one needs to consider the long time health of the child in insisting that they have a relationship with either of their parents. As a parent - it is our duty to provide a safe, loving and nurturing environment for our children - it is not our right.

 

[Andrea Duncan]

So he got unsupervised access. He even admitted in court he had been abusive but rationalised that it was toward me not our son and he loves our son...he loved me once, too.

Today, white ribbon day, a day when we collectively vowed to stamp out domestic abuse, a judge granted my volatile, abusive, alcoholic ex-husband unsupervised access to my small baby.

Thanks everybody for your input, say a prayer for my baby boy that he doesn't become another statistic.

 

[Andrea Duncan]

My kids are with their mum this week - so I have some spare time...

So, I had a quick look at the family law court data base for cases to help show the consequences when one parent refuses reasonable access to the other parent. Now I'm not saying that is what you're doing - I'm not here to judge, but if a court deems that is what you're doing then parenting can get reversed. It happens and it happens often.

Read some cases:
Helbig & Rowe and Ors [2016] FamCAFC 117 (6 July 2016)
and
Langley & Bramble [2010] FamCAFC 34 (1 March 2010)

Oh, and sometimes, the court orders the mother to pay the father's costs (legal fees) like in the case above.

I especially encourage you to read this one because it is a case where the mother accused the father of being an alcoholic and being abusive...
Fiordan & Reesa [2013] FamCA 329 (12 April 2013)

Not only do the kids live with dad, but dad has sole parental responsibility. So mum basically had all her legal rights as a parent removed from her.

Now to be fair:
Molloy & Turner [2013] FamCA 587 (19 July 2013)

Here is a case where the court accepted dad had an 'substantial' substance abuse problem and ordered contact centre visits only. But this bloke clearly had a severe drug problem, and had refused treatment.

So, yep supervised visits for drug dependent people happen, I grant you that, but when you look into the details of this case, we are talking about hard core drugs. He also took the kid and didn't return him, refused treatment, etc etc. So a hell of a long way from what you're talking.

Your ex has a job right? Pays child support right? The court is gonna say, "Hey if he can keep down a job well enough to pay child support then he must be doing well enough", and that is gonna be a hard argument to counter.

Do you know what a functioning alcoholic is? That's my ex. He holds down a job yes, but binge drinks weekends and probably knocks back a dozen beers a night, every night, but he knows when to stop so he won't go over when he clocks in at the mine in the morning, he's clever that way.

He gets rotton Friday and Saturday nights. That's when I used to go to mum's because I knew he would come back from his mate's place abusive.

Nobody, least of all my child, should have to live that way

 

[sammy01]

Andrea - While I'm sorry that you feel that today's decision is wrong. I'd like to give you some things to consider....
So firstly White ribbon day is no reason for a magistrate to make any changes in their decisions.
Magistrate is armed with a whole lot of information and armed with all that info made a decision. I'm guessing it was an interim hearing??? That being the case you have a few options.
1. Accepted it and continue your court case in the hope magistrate will change his mind (good luck with that one)
2. Accept it and now try to a compromise position between what the father wants and a new revised position that you're gonna have to take as clearly your current position isn't going to be accepted by magistrate...
3 - be really stupid and do not comply with the orders - Don't do that one....

So - lets think this through - he is functioning enough to continue in a line of work where I believe there are routine checks??? Well from that I can't help but think that indicates it ain't all that bad. NEXT - IF he is capable enough to work and presumably pay you child support then I'd suggest he is capable enough to look after the child. Surely, it doesn't work that you will accept financial child support but wont accept that he can emotionally support the child???

 

[Complex16]

So he got unsupervised access. He even admitted in court he had been abusive but rationalised that it was toward me not our son and he loves our son...he loved me once, too.

Today, white ribbon day, a day when we collectively vowed to stamp out domestic abuse, a judge granted my volatile, abusive, alcoholic ex-husband unsupervised access to my small baby.

Thanks everybody for your input, say a prayer for my baby boy that he doesn't become another statistic.

Andrea I'm so so sorry to hear that. I can't imagine how you must be feeling right now :-(

 

[sammy01]

Hey Andrea - can I ask a few questions??? Do you have legal representation? if so - what did the solicitor say was likely to happen? Look we come at these things from two very different perspectives BUT regardless this is a support forum... So IF solicitor told you not to worry and that unsupervised visits are unlikely etc etc then I encourage you to have a good chat with the solicitor and think about the service you're getting - See - I reckon some solicitors will tell you what you want to hear - This costs you money and I don't think it is fair or reasonable...

 

[SamanthaJay]

I'm sorry for you and your little guy too Andrea. Alcohol abuse is a scourge for many Australian families. I waited till my kids were older to leave my alcoholic ex because there was no way in hell I was ever leaving them with him during his danger times - every afternoon week nights and from lunch time on weekends. Although if he didn't work, it was lunch time on weekdays as well.

When I think back to how we had to live our lives, I'm sickened. Every now and then the kids try to resume a relationship with their father again only to be slapped back to reality when they visit him after work or on weekends. He's ok if they visit early in the morning before he hits the booze. Pretty hard to try and time your relationship based on this.

And as for White Ribbon - it's a joke. It's all about men and making them feel better about themselves. Do you know that not a cent of their fundraising goes to front line women services such as domestic violence safe houses or r**e crisis centres?

 

[sammy01]

I agree white ribbon is a joke, but for completely different reasons. The cops acknowledge 1/3 of DV victims are male. It also sickens me that this sort of sexism exists. Why not have a pledge to refuse to accept any violence ever no matter the gender of the victim, or the perpetrator?

If you want to have a gender debate, do you want to look at male suicide rates? they are appalling. Oh, and next time you're at McDonalds, have a look around - it wont take you long to realise the one or two blokes standing there waiting for the ex to drop off the kid.

You can pick them - they will swap between looking at their watch and their phone every 30 seconds and may well have half a dozen ciggie butts at their feet.

How many times does a mother have to withhold a child before she can call child support and their child support goes up? Once. How many times can she get away with it before the courts do anything? Lots and lots.

Oh, and what will be the financial and emotional toll on dad and kids because mum refuses to follow court orders, and because dad has to keep going back to court?

Meanwhile - an AVO will be granted by the courts to protect a 'victim' with zero evidence. Actually, I kind of, sort of don't mind that bit. Seems like it would make it very easy for innocent men to cop AVO's by vindictive exes, but at least there is that provision in the law so that crimes that happen in the home without witnesses can still get the attention of the cops...

But guess what - in NSW, the accused is not allowed to question their accuser in court. So where does innocent until guilty sit in all this? What about the right to a fair trial when you can't even question your accuser? Yep, not much of that either...

Now guess what - none of us are the best person to judge the character of the ex. We hate them - that is why they are our ex, but when agreement can't be made between two parents, then the courts are the only option. So armed with ICL's psychologist reports etc etc, the person with the funny wig gets to make a call.

Now while DVO stats are appallingly high and that is a real problem - guess what - I don't read lots of news stories about kids hurt / killed etc., by a parent who was granted court access to their kid, despite the other parents protestations...Why the parent who protested was wrong.

Mind you, there are also lots of cases where the parent protested that the child was at risk with the other parent and the courts accepted that perspective and consequently made orders accordingly.

Rant over.