The Law Family Court strikes again

[nylexbandit]

http://www.theage.com.au/national/m...spite-delinquent-attitude-20110103-19duh.html

So basically she specifically set out to make the kids hate the dad (which is wrong- equivalent to abuse), succeeded in doing so, and is facing no repercussions- indeed he seems to be getting the worst possible custody arrangment- none.

Whats the bets none of his letters or presents get to the kids.

 

[JeffDunne]

Can you pass judgement knowing so little of the facts?

As for her defing the court order, that would suit the father's interests.

Courts act under law. If you have a problem with the law then complain to the law makers.

 

[Qsaint]

The judge made a decision in the interest of the children, what else do you want?

 

[RisingPhoenix]

Mum and Dad both sound like absolute pond scum as far as im concerned.

Place the children with foster parents already.

The lesser of two evils, is still evil etc.

 

[Donners]

Yes, because children who go through the DHS merry-go-round have such a good record of turning out well...

 

[RisingPhoenix]

Yes, because children who go through the DHS merry-go-round have such a good record of turning out well...

Thats because bleeding heart social workers dont want to make the hard decision and pull kids out permanantly and place them in (adoptive) foster care. If there is family on the scene that the kids can be placed with thats any better...go for it. But the Mum and the Dad in this situation both sound like trash, in which case its hard to defend any scenario that involves either of them holding sole custody.

 

[Chief]

You'd think the court might order counselling and limited visits to repair the damage done.

 

[RisingPhoenix]

You'd think the court might order counselling and limited visits to repair the damage done.

I take back what i've said thus far in this thread.

After reading the article a few more times, counselling and supervised 70/30 with an eventual view to 50/50 shared access for the father is exactly what should of happened.

As for the mother, regardless of whether she has a 'loving' relationship with her children, her access and status as guardian should now be dependent on her future conduct in relation to the father.

 

[JeffDunne]

More generally than just this case, as I don't think the article gives enough detail to judge, should kids be forced to have contact with a parent if they don't want contact?

 

[Generalissimo]

Mum and Dad both sound like absolute pond scum as far as im concerned.

Bit hard on the father, I reckon. The article doesn't say anything about him at all; where do you get the idea he's scum?

 

[RisingPhoenix]

Bit hard on the father, I reckon. The article doesn't say anything about him at all; where do you get the idea he's scum?

I agree.

I misread the article the first time and made the mistake of posting based on my (incorrect) observations.

I have corrected myself in my previous post.

 

[RisingPhoenix]

More generally than just this case, as I don't think the article gives enough detail to judge, should kids be forced to have contact with a parent if they don't want contact?

No. But the courts should insist on at least attempting some kind of DOCs driven 'reconcilliation'.

For a parent to be so alienated from there children by the other, that they are never able to see them again because of it....i would of considered jailing the mother to be honest. A crime far more deserving of time behind bars then writing a few bodgy cheques IMO...which is what most women go inside for.

 

[Donners]

Goodness, why do courts even waste time with evidence? Just get someone to write a couple of hundred words to summarise it, and any person could work out what should be done.

 

[nylexbandit]

Qsaint- while the decision was made 'in the best interests of the children' i think it was made without really considering the important influence a father can have on kids.

As others have mentioned, the kids could receive counselling to help them understand their feelings about their dad. If after that they still don't want to see him, and in the court/therapist's view this is unrelated to the influence of the mother, then it's a good decision. But I doubt this is really the case.

Also while I understand there is obviously limited info in the article, the fact that "Justice Austin found the ''primary cause of the children's desperate emotional turmoil lies with the mother''." suggests that it was a case of their attitude being influenced by the mother.

 

[nylexbandit]

Goodness, why do courts even waste time with evidence? Just get someone to write a couple of hundred words to summarise it, and any person could work out what should be done.

Goodness, why do papers waste time reporting court cases? One cannot possibly state the major reasons for a decision in less than 5 pages.

 

[Pie eyed]

Can you pass judgement knowing so little of the facts?

As for her defing the court order, that would suit the father's interests.

Courts act under law. If you have a problem with the law then complain to the law makers.

Agreement. Though not having any of the facts, just an outline, I feel for the father being cut-off totally.

 

[Donners]

Goodness, why do papers waste time reporting court cases? One cannot possibly state the major reasons for a decision in less than 5 pages.

Ideally, they do it to simply convey information about a particular outcome. Unfortunately, others do it with a particular agenda, to dispute a decision (the conflict between summarising the facts accurately and wanting to show the decision to be wrong is obvious).

In either case, there is rarely enough there to be able to enable an informed and decisive view about what should have happened, especially by people with limited knowledge of the relevant law.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The children would have spent time with court appointed psychologists apart from the mother in order to find out their true state of mind. These people are well rehearsed in interracting with children and in seeing past any coaching they might have received. Kids are just not that devious when it comes to sticking to a fabrication.

I have gone through a custody issue where I in effect won, and limited access (not overnight) was granted to my ex, so I do not speak from a position of blaming fathers generally.

These issues the children have with their father could have been implanted by their mother but at those ages it would have taken several years. The fact that they were seeing him a year before and they still hold their beliefs while under the microscope of a psychologist, suggests there may be some issues on the father's side.

We can't know that but it is not just a matter of saying he is a bad guy, and having the kids repeat it in court. Some mothers (and fathers) genuinely try to protect their children from a mentally draining and unstable environment. Some of course are just self serving and seek to inflict pain on their ex partner.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Qsaint- while the decision was made 'in the best interests of the children' i think it was made without really considering the important influence a father can have on kids.

As others have mentioned, the kids could receive counselling to help them understand their feelings about their dad. If after that they still don't want to see him, and in the court/therapist's view this is unrelated to the influence of the mother, then it's a good decision. But I doubt this is really the case.

Also while I understand there is obviously limited info in the article, the fact that "Justice Austin found the ''primary cause of the children's desperate emotional turmoil lies with the mother''." suggests that it was a case of their attitude being influenced by the mother.

Unfortunately, if as the article (and judge) seem to suggest, the mother is actively working to implant fears and paranoia into the minds of the kids, it would take almost daily counselling to undo that (even if it was possible).

Speaking from experience, I can say that most of the behaviour of separated parents stems from the one who is "left" seeking revenge upon the "leaver".

The only time I've seen separation work anything like smoothly is when the parties both truly have the best interests of the kids at heart, but this is a rare situation.

 

[stickman11]

You'd think the court might order counselling and limited visits to repair the damage done.

Courts and judges don't live in the real world. The problem with judges is that they spend too much time associating with people of their ilk. Overpaid beuracrats and their lawyer friends.

 

[kfc1]

http://www.theage.com.au/national/m...spite-delinquent-attitude-20110103-19duh.html

So basically she specifically set out to make the kids hate the dad (which is wrong- equivalent to abuse), succeeded in doing so, and is facing no repercussions- indeed he seems to be getting the worst possible custody arrangment- none.

Whats the bets none of his letters or presents get to the kids.

little graham

 

[Chief]

little graham

Why kick this off after 4 years?

 

[kfc1]

Why kick this off after 4 years?

Was reading old threads and thought littlegraham may be interested

 

[Chief]

Has anything new come to light in this case?

 

[kfc1]

Not that im aware of