Application of S60CC & Child Abduction - Definition

[StevieB]

Hi There,

If a woman, whom is carrying your unborn child, misinforms you of when she conceived and then abruptly takes off to another state (as most will know this then/later officially becomes the date when the parties separated although it was not known at the time to be that for the father) and gives birth in another state (so the father could not be present) and she then does all she can to prevent the father/child from having contact and/or realizing their rights; including as per section 60CC (2)(a) [meaningful relationship] . . .

Question 1: Can this be called an abduction? Or, must the child be born to be abducted?

Additionally, irrespective of question 1 and/or its real answer; given the below/aforementioned scenario does the following sections of the same act apply for the given (or other;please provide) reasons?


---------------------------------------------------------------

Family law act Section 60CC = FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 60CC How a court determines what is in a child's best interests

60CC(2)(a) Meaningful relationship with both parents.

Due to the mother’s actions father not present when child born and currently the child has not spent any meaningful time at all with father since he was born. Child is now 4 months old


60CC(2)(b) Protect the child from physical/psychological harm.

It is unclear whether the mother provides an adequate environment for the child to live in (some that live with her secretly say she does not) but even if she does surely her approach to the father/child relationship runs fowl of s60CC; including sub-section 60CC(2)(b).


60CC(3)(b) The nature of the grandparent’s and my relationship with the child Harshvir.

Due to the above/below; it seems the mother fails to afford the child her rights including by way of refusing to provide meaningful/unrestricted access/contact between child and father/grandparents.


60CC(3)(ca) The extent to which the child's mother has fulfilled, or failed to fulfill, her obligations to the child.

As per my above comments for 60CC(2)(b); it is unclear whether the mother provides an adequate environment for the child to live in (some that live with her secretly say she does not) but even if she does surely her approach to the father/child relationship runs fowl of s60CC; including sub-section 60CC(2)(b). Additionally, the mother refuses outright (in mediation) to provide medical/other details pertaining to health and well being.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Current status quo is;

A) No parenting orders in place; yet.


B) Although the mother’s protection order application (POA) has given rise to interim orders, not only does the magistrates-court (I think) have no jurisdiction for parenting matter - but also, the only POA interim order of value to this matter is that which effectively states the father can't go near and/or communicate with mother about anything except [parenting] arrangements for the child.

This appears to be the basis of the mother’s current “take it or leave it” approach as it applies to *the 1 hour per fortnight of supervised care and also her informal exclusive care arrangement.


C) The mother continues (in mediation) to actively prevent/restrict the child from developing maintaining a relationship with both her father and also her father’s family (grandparents included).


D) Additionally, the mother refuses outright (in mediation) to provide medical/other details pertaining to health and well being.



E) We have just had our 2nd *mediation session and the mother offers (in mediation) only 1 hour of supervised contact per fortnight; with full knowledge that the child has not spent meaningful time with her father at all in her life - the father must travel interstate to experience the “1 hour supervised care session”- and, there really is no requirement for supervised care (this, I believe, is why she withholds medical/other records about the child’s health and well being).


F) She is enjoying this.


Kind regards,

Steve.

 

[Atticus]

Question 1: Can this be called an abduction? Or, must the child be born to be abducted?

Yes child has to be born

I've given my opinion on the remainder of your post in the past, (or similar) so hopefully others will chime in..... I will just add again that your biggest hurdle at this point is that the child is still a baby, & you are living & working in another state..

 

[Suzi]

Clearly mediation hasn't worked. You will need to commence proceedings to exercise the child's rights to a 'meaningful relationship' with you. Given that the child barely knows you, a Court is unlikely to order anything other than time spent with the child to occur in the State that the child lives. The supervisor does not need to be the Child Contact Centre, it can be a grandparent or friend which means that the time does not need to be restricted to 1 hour. Once you have built up a relationship with your child (and depending on his or her age), you can ask the Court to make orders that the child spend longer periods of time with you including overnight and be allowed to travel to and from your home State. Hope this helps.

 

[StevieB]

Thanks Atticus and Suzi for your responses/comments.



For what it is worth (and this “might” apply more to Atticus’ last post than to Suzi’s, but I think it does apply a little bit to Suzi’s last post as well) the interstate child-access matter is actually as resolved as it possibly can be (a good set of proposed orders has already been designed) and now I simply want to know where the father stands within the context of my previous post’s discussed FLA (including s60CC) areas given both, the provided background and the mother's conduct.



Suzi, thanks for your suggestion to act (file in the Federal Circuit Court) in order to exercise the child’s rights. I agree and the father has been planning that for some time; hence waiting all this time for the s60I certificate and my previous/above post’s questions about the applicability of s60CC



Right now I would really appreciate it if someone would go through my previous post and advise as to whether or not I am I correct in my assumptions about how the sections of 600CC apply for the given scenario/conduct.



Kind regards,



Steve.

 

[Tim W]

....and now I simply want to know where the father stands within the context of my previous post’s discussed FLA (including s60CC) areas given both, the provided background and the mother's conduct.

This is where you stand:

1. She doesn't have to tell you if she's pregnant, or not.
2. She doesn't have to live with you if she doesn't want to.
3. You don't have property rights in the child.
4. You don't have property rights in the mother's body.
5. Unless constrained by operation of law,* an adult person (of any gender, and any relationship status)
is free to come and go interstate (or indeed, overseas) any time they want.
The pregnant woman does not need anybody's permission to go anywhere.
6. A fetus cannot be abducted. A fetus (right up to the moment it's born) does not have a legal existence separate from it's mother.
7. I agree with @Suzi about the rights of the child.
But that accrues to the child. It does not operate to enliven rights that you don't have.
8. Yes, you'll have to pay Child Support anyway.

----------------------------------------------------------
* When I say "by operation of law", that means where there is something in play such as, for example (but not only),
a Court Order that says a person must live in this place or that, or
something like bail conditions, or a trial outcome such as a CCO/ICO, or parole conditions, or
even something contractual, such as where they (can choose to) work, or
if they have to live in a regional area as a visa condition, or
as an requirement of having their education funded (such as Regional Doctor or Teacher scholarships) or
these days, a Public Health Order.
The term "operation of law" covers all of that sort of stuff.

 

[StevieB]

Part 1

Thanks Tim for your responses/comments.

The father is not necessarily concerned about those things (at least not in the context you seem to have responded to them in anyway) and as per my previous posts you can see that very few of my/the questions directly relate to the father being uncertain about points 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 that you have generously provided in your response.

For instance, my question (and/or request for comment) about “Protecting the child from physical/psychological harm” and s60CC(2)(b) - itself a reasonable call - seems to have been passed over in your post despite it arguably having greater relevance (including to the child) than most of the superfluous points (including points 2, 4, and 8 {please note the father has been paying CS for months and that is one reason why questions related to that were not asked/pitched}) you have generously provided in your response.

What the father is concerned with (please note that below I have revised the previous posts s60CC questions {where I use brackets like this [revision]} that were not answered in your last post to make them clearer) is this. . .


1) 60CC(2)(a) Meaningful relationship with both parents.


As stated in my previous post; due to the mother’s actions the father was not present when [the] child was born AND currently [because] the child has not spent any meaningful time at all with father since he was born [as a result of the mother refusing to provide access and the] child is now [more than] 4 months old . . .

Question 1; surely this conduct on the mother’s part is, if not in breach of it then at least, not aligned with s60CC?

It surely can't be acceptable conduct (regardless of the mother’s ownership of her own body; which is not in dispute) to depart to another state; (i) for the purposes of preventing a relationship between father/child; and/or (ii) do so in ways that do not meaningfully consider the child’s rights to have meaningful contact and a relationship with his father and/or grandparents.

If not, then how is her conduct of refusing to arrange contact (and delaying mediation) complaint with s60CC(2)(a)?


2) 60CC(2)(b) Protect the child from physical/psychological harm.


As stated in my previous post; it is unclear whether the mother provides an adequate environment for the child to live in (some that live with her secretly say she does not) but even if she does [then] surely her approach to the father/child relationship runs fowl of s60CC; including sub-section s60CC(2)(b).

It surely can't be acceptable conduct to depart to another state; (i) for the purposes of preventing a relationship between father/child; and/or (ii) do so in ways that do not meaningfully consider the child’s rights to have meaningful contact and a relationship with his father and/or grandparents.

Question 2; surely this conduct on the mother’s part is, if not in breach of it then at least, not aligned with s60CC?

If not, then how is her conduct of refusing to arrange contact complaint with s60CC(2)(b)?


3) 60CC(3)(b) The nature of the grandparent’s and my relationship with the child.

As stated in my previous post; due to the above/below it seems the mother fails to afford the child her rights including by way of refusing to provide meaningful/unrestricted access/contact between child and father/grandparents.

Question 3; surely this conduct on the mother’s part is, if not in breach of it then at least, not aligned with s60CC?

If not, how is her conduct of refusing (in writing and at mediation) to arrange contact complaint with s60CC(3)(b)?


4) 60CC(3)(ca) The extent to which the child's mother has fulfilled, or failed to fulfill, her obligations to the child.

As per my above comments for 60CC(2)(b); it is unclear whether the mother provides an adequate environment for the child to live in (some that live with her secretly say she does not) but even if she does - surely her approach to the father/child relationship runs fowl of s60CC; including sub-section 60CC(3)(ca).


Additionally - as mentioned above - the mother refuses outright (in writing/mediation) to provide medical/other details pertaining to [the child’s] health and well being.

Question 4a; surely this conduct on the mother’s part is, if not in breach of it then at least, not aligned with s60CC?

If not, then how is a potentially sub-standard and/or potentially dangerous environment (regardless of how this all happens in conjunction with the mother’s below and/or above-mentioned outright refusals to provide medical/other details pertaining to [the child’s] health and well being) in any way complaint with s60CC(3)(b)?


Question 4b; Furthermore, surely the mother has an obligation to provide medical/other details pertaining to [the child’s] health and well being?


Consideration 1; this goes to your point 1; the mother advised he father that she was pregnant well before her (seemingly staged) departure but she, not only lied about the conception dates in ways the obstetrician raise questions about - but also, she involved the father in some of those appointments/tests.


Please remember Tim, just because a spouse’s actions (even if they are a women like myself) are severe/stigmatic it doesn’t mean their allegations/actions are reliable and/or appropriate/legal. I say that as your answers, whilst generous/welcome, seem to convey somewhat of a snappy tone of retort and presumption.


You are by no means communicating to someone without reasonable insight (I have 1 judge in my family and 2 lawyers but they are all in another country) and, as implausible as it may seem, I am actually not the father. That said your legal system here is a bit different from where I come from.


Finally, I looked at ~*20 previous cases that were similar to this one before posting; and no I am not a student - I work in psychology and support services but have an interest in law and like to see how cases play out.


I am thinking about doing a law degree in 2 years and if I do that will be my 3rd degree. Aside from that, another reason I came here to this site is because I will probably be recommending to the father what solicitor and/or firm to contact as he is currently unrepresented and I was hoping to hear about this matter from someone that (to use the father’s words) demonstrated a genuine father’s rights/perspective to the problem.

 

[StevieB]

Part 2

Anyway - I am sure it will come as an absolute surprise and real shock to you and also all the contributors/readers here that - *9 (of the previous ~*20 cases I looked at) involved very similar, if not identical, situations (immigrant bride expedites citizenship with the stigma of an abuse claim while pregnant {and destroys a guy’s life in the process with no questions asked; as he is left reeling and wondering what love, the law, and fairness, is} to live in a 1st world country, where the mother {herself quite abusive to him in various ways including how false romance/allegations can also be a form of abuse} ran away shortly after the arranged marriage {that she might not have ever really been genuinely interested in} while pregnant and after starting lots of arguments, but then later claimed it was her that was abused. But - after her exhausting all protection order application avenues {possibly as a means to extend the time with the child and set that exclusive care arrangement precedent} - it turns out she abjectly failed to provide adequate/material/independent evidence to support her claims) where the claims/allegations and timelines where so similar to what the father is experiencing, that;


A) It was hard to escape how super-easily/expedited the (alleged) aggrieved person’s citizenship and financial support applications were. Similarly, it was also was hard to escape the fact that no one/agency seemed to care about false and misleading allegations after; (i) the (alleged) aggrieved had been shown to misrepresent the matter in court/trial and had lost as the applicant; and (ii) they had super-easily/expedited the (alleged) aggrieved person’s citizenship and financial support applications. Why wouldn’t someone do this if perjury comes with the penalty of impunity.


B) I noticed;

>> B1) Many of the aforementioned aspects of s60CC (including those you didn’t directly respond to) were (almost always successfully) raised in the father’s defence; including within trial/documents.


>> B2) Some of your responses seemed to be just a little off the mark.


C) I noticed the father’s defence was often successful but if so that success was usually dependent on (at least) 3 things; (i) if he made it to the trial and had a solicitor and Barrister (note; not just a Barrister) that was prepared to highlight how the (domestic abuse and/or legal) system, some ICL’s and some family report writers, can sometimes unfairly work; (ii) the father being cashed up enough to survive to the trial; including by way of it possibly being a strategy of the other side to prolong/frustrate and deny even amounts of access to child; and (iii) the father being stable enough to not react to the mother’s false/misleading allegations and/or the mother’s abusive/questionable conduct and/or how much the ICL/FRW might buy into and/or support it, so that he, in effect, fulfills her false domestic abuse allegation; including by way of this (the father being stable enough to not react throughout all the years it takes for the trial to arrive) possibly being a strategy of the other side to prolong/frustrate and deny even amounts of access to child.


Anyway, Tim, whilst your response was generous, perhaps a little off the mark (what do I know?), and appreciated, the fact remains that my original post did contain a few typos/omissions and yours still brought about the aforementioned discussion.


As such, I would be happy for anyone to directly respond to and/or answer the questions I am asking within the contexts that they are being asked. This is a real case, the father is distraught but not out of control, and I believe the mother is rorting the system (surely the first time it has happened) and as such the child, in my uninformed opinion, is being at least psychologically abused.


I appreciate your time/effort and kind regards,

Stevie.

 

[StevieB]

Part 2

Anyway - I am sure it will come as an absolute surprise and real shock to you and also all the contributors/readers here that - *9 (of the previous ~*20 cases I looked at) involved very similar, if not identical, situations (immigrant bride expedites citizenship with the stigma of an abuse claim while pregnant {and destroys a guy’s life in the process with no questions asked; as he is left reeling and wondering what love, the law, and fairness, is} to live in a 1st world country, where the mother {herself quite abusive to him in various ways including how false romance/allegations can also be a form of abuse} ran away shortly after the arranged marriage {that she might not have ever really been genuinely interested in} while pregnant and after starting lots of arguments, but then later claimed it was her that was abused. But - after her exhausting all protection order application avenues {possibly as a means to extend the time with the child and set that exclusive care arrangement precedent} - it turns out she abjectly failed to provide adequate/material/independent evidence to support her claims) where the claims/allegations and timelines where so similar to what the father is experiencing, that;


A) It was hard to escape how super-easily/expedited the (alleged) aggrieved person’s citizenship and financial support applications were. Similarly, it was also was hard to escape the fact that no one/agency seemed to care about false and misleading allegations after; (i) the (alleged) aggrieved had been shown to misrepresent the matter in court/trial and had lost as the applicant; and (ii) they had super-easily/expedited the (alleged) aggrieved person’s citizenship and financial support applications. Why wouldn’t someone do this if perjury comes with the penalty of impunity.


B) I noticed;

B1) Many of the aforementioned aspects of s60CC (including those you didn’t directly respond to) were (almost always successfully) raised in the father’s defence; including within trial/documents.


B2) Some of your responses seemed to be just a little off the mark.


C) I noticed the father’s defence was often successful but if so that success was usually dependent on (at least) 3 things; (i) if he made it to the trial and had a solicitor and Barrister (note; not just a Barrister) that was prepared to highlight how the (domestic abuse and/or legal) system, some ICL’s and some family report writers, can sometimes unfairly work; (ii) the father being cashed up enough to survive to the trial; including by way of it possibly being a strategy of the other side to prolong/frustrate and deny even amounts of access to child; and (iii) the father being stable enough to not react to the mother’s false/misleading allegations and/or the mother’s abusive/questionable conduct and/or how much the ICL/FRW might buy into and/or support it, so that he, in effect, fulfills her false domestic abuse allegation; including by way of this (the father being stable enough to not react throughout all the years it takes for the trial to arrive) possibly being a strategy of the other side to prolong/frustrate and deny even amounts of access to child.


Anyway, Tim, whilst your response was generous, perhaps a little off the mark (what do I know?), and appreciated, the fact remains that my original post did contain a few typos/omissions and yours still brought about the aforementioned discussion.

As such, I would be happy for anyone to directly respond to and/or answer the questions I am asking within the contexts that they are being asked. This is a real case, the father is distraught but not out of control, and I believe the mother is rorting the system (surely the first time it has happened) and as such the child, in my uninformed opinion, is being at least psychologically abused.

I appreciate your time/effort and kind regards,

Stevie.

 

[Atticus]

For what it is worth (and this “might” apply more to Atticus’ last post than to Suzi’s, but I think it does apply a little bit to Suzi’s last post as well) the interstate child-access matter is actually as resolved as it possibly can be

You mean there are no further sessions booked? .... So you are awaiting a decision by mediator to issue a s60I?

I would be happy for anyone to directly respond to and/or answer the questions I am asking within the contexts that they are being asked.

In context .... Very little of s60cc is applicable at this point, & may not be depending on how things are when a case is actually filed & comes before a court registrar .... In context, some of your assumptions of how s60CC may operate in your/this/his case are not at all realistic ..... The child here is 4 MONTHS old ..... There is literally almost no history on which to base any consideration contained in that section of the act.

Foe EG, you have mentioned several times psycholgical harm (of the child) as in context with that section ...... impossible to establish or even evaluate with a 4 month old ... Hard enough to establish with a five year old & even then only after a detailed evaluation & report by a professional

The 'conduct' in which she has behaved thus far is in keeping with how a 4 month old in any situation (of separation) is likely to be, leave alone interstate .... While you are reading the act, you may want to read the sections that go into detail about the 'practicality' & 'affordability' of any arrangements, & how that may impact on best interests, because, again, that is by far your/his/their biggest hurdle

 

[StevieB]

Hi Atticus,



In addition to my comprehensive previous post that explains why; (i) s60CC probably does apply; and also why it (ii) has done so in similar cases before . . . . .



Given that the *Family Law Act (including sections [ 4AB; 3, 2(i) and 2(j) ] and [ 4(1); (c) and (d) ] ) appears to define;



- Family violence; as when a person prevents a family member from making or keeping connections with his/her family/friends and culture - or, unlawfully depriving the family member (or any member of the family member’s family) of his/her liberty.





- Abuse to a child; as causing the child to suffer serious psychological harm, including (but not limited to) when that harm is caused by the child being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence; or serious neglect of the child.



It is unclear to me how the mother’s below/aforementioned actions don’t represent a risk to the child and/or fit the Family Law Act’s definitions for family violence and/or abuse.



Additionally, the child is now almost 7 months old and (regardless of age) the child - as per the family law act - has rights to have a meaningful relationship with both parents, her grandparents and aunties; all of which the mother is preventing. The Honorable Judge Jarrett (QLD Federal Circuit Court judge) seems to agree about child’s rights and s60CC in some of his decisions in similar cases too.





The mother’s continual prevention of the child from having a meaningful relationship with her father and his family seems to be at odds with the aforementioned sections of s60CC, and - as aforementioned - also s4 of the family law act.



Psychological/other abuse is defined by s4* of the family law act and the above points; and as such the mother’s conduct appears to constitute abuse by way of the family law act.



Insofar as your last paragraph/sentence; not only is the father prepared to accommodate all costs associated with any interstate travel and CS and has made this clear too all involved - but also, conduct of the mother that involves her attacking the father and unnecessarily ripping the child from his arms (as the child’s limbs fly about) has been observed by both independent witnesses, security video, and the police; as such this also constitutes abusive behavior.



Only one more mediation session is booked but the s60I FDR certificate has already been attained and as such the Federal Circuit Court papers are ready to go.



I don’t necessarily agree with some of your other comments but you have helped in the past, so my way of thinking is that there is no need to make a big deal out of it. Thanks for chiming in again Atticus.



Kind regards,



Stevie.