Application of S60CC & Child Abduction - Definition

[Atticus]

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.

I suspect it will remain unclear to you as well … what is fairly clear is that you are not open to any other possibility than your own assumptions.... Very bad starting point in parenting cases

To be a honest, your posts here suggest you *may* be more about being a bit of a smart a** and/or troll/student, rather than someone looking for answers/advice to an actual problem.

That said, If this is in fact a REAL case involving a 7 month old (or 4 months old three days ago) my advice is… now that you have the required S60I certificate, file for orders immediately, then get a lawyer & leave it up to them.... who I’m willing to bet will tell you that regardless of anything relating to s60CC being bought into question or even proved, that apart from the mothers consent, the ONLY thing that is going to convince a court to hand down an interim order for time spent with the father, is a plan that you/him/they submit in an application for orders sought that is both practical & workable in all the circumstances…. That really is all that is going to matter at this point given your circumstances.

In this case, that WILL involve supervised visits initially, which the mother has already proposed … & in itself is proof that the mother is willing to work towards visitation BTW.... which makes some of your other assertions in the context of s60CC baseless as well …. if you think the time offered is not enough, then again it will be up to you the applicant to put forward a practical, workable plan for extra time…

 

[GlassHalfFull]

Atticus generally has the most informed general legal advice here so I'm not going to try to add much to it, but I will say this from my personal experience: Family law is less about the proving your case, and more about proving you are able to provide something positive for the children's lives that, on balance, is greater than the disruption caused by you upsetting the children's usual routine with their primary carer. I guess that comes down to the 'practicality' aspect that Atticus alluded to previously.

And in any case, past injustices against seem to largely fall by the wayside. Your ex may have totally screwed you (and your then unborn child) by fleeing and refusing to co-operate. But you know what? A judge/registrar is unlikely to care about that. I got screwed by my ex in many ways. Didn't matter. All that seemed to matter was what happened going forward. And by the time we got to court, I was effectively removed from my children's lives for many months and had to start again from scratch. All that seemed to matter to the court was that a relationship be re-established progressively. No penalties to the ex. No compensation to me. They don't want to get bogged down with past injustices. They just want to resolve conflicts and improve the current situation and be done with it as quickly and easily as they can. Your best course of action (IMO) is to think about how best improve your relationship with your child and make a proposal based on that. It sucks. It isn't 'justice' (here's rarely such a thing in family law IMO). But that is likely to result in the best outcome for you and your child.

 

[StevieB]

Hi Atticus,

I don’t appreciate you inference/claims that I am a smart azz.

I have not lost control or resorted to publishing personalized allegations; and the same (being an azz) could be said about the author of such commentary, so please note that one trait of such a person (being an azz) is the inability to remain impersonal.
It is telling that, despite the way the conversation may be deteriorating in some places, to date no-one has yet properly answered the questions I asked (I may set an example and show what I was asking for at a later date); Suzi remained impersonal/professional at all times.

Atticus, your personalized (azz) comments would be better applied to Tim’s earlier post; but for some reason they weren’t.

Furthermore, please note the following;

1) Your last post does not address our earlier one’s apparent oversight’s of the family law act definitions (of abuse/violence) that my last post references. I am not sure what that means for your recently personalized posts/comments.


2) The discrepancy between age of the child (a function of the father’s poor control of the English language) has no bearing on how the family law act applies; you should know this.


3) Father attended Barrister’s chambers this morning and acquired pro bono QC assistance; he is over the moon. He was notified yesterday that he was successful in his request to the Bar for assistance but since they didn’t say whom it was (or perhaps he didn’t understand), even though he was ecstatic he didn’t know it was a QC.


4) I had helped him; (a) apply for pro bono assistance; and (b) settle 1st draft of both the Federal Circuit Court sought orders and his IA affidavit before it was today handed to Barrister’s clerk; and that was why I previously broadcast the matters related to s60CC in this forum to see what others, with more experience than myself, would say; as whilst I am confident I know the value of peer review.

Finally;

A) Out of all the points pertaining to s60CC that I raised in previous posts and asked for feedback about within the contexts of both it and the mother’s conduct; apparently the Barrister only took issue with 60CC(3)(a) and made an *adjustment; as such all the s60CC points I listed will now feature (pretty much in the form as per my post of 19 June) within the father’s affidavit that will be filed with his initiating action and risk notice at the Federal Circuit Court. To be *clear the *amended reference to 60CC(3)(a) is still in the affidavit that will be filed.


B) In the event there are further doubts about my character about this matter I will consider whether a redacted version of the final affidavit can be obtained and then, perhaps after an NDA is signed with the authors of the insults, privately releasing it; although I am not sure if the instructing solicitor and/or Barristers would dis/agree about that.


C) Can you please tell Glass Half Full GHF that my posts are not about me and/or my ex.


D) I don’t necessarily agree with some of your post’s other comments (for instance your allegation that I am a troll Student is utterly flawed and the effort publishing that claim might be better spent on acknowledging my last post’s reference to s4AB of the family law act) but you have helped in the past, so my way of thinking is that (save for the below point E) there is no need to make a big deal out of it.


E) Your claim that I am not open to any other possibility does appear to be a little hypocritical.


Thanks for chiming in again Atticus.

Kind regards,

Stevie.

 

[Step2Three]

Father attended Barrister’s chambers this morning and acquired pro bono QC assistance; he is over the moon. He was notified yesterday that he was successful in his request to the Bar for assistance but since they didn’t say whom it was (or perhaps he didn’t understand), even though he was ecstatic he didn’t know it was a QC.

Great- looks like the father doesn't need to worry about opinions of internet forum laymen then! To be honest, if assistance from the Bar has been obtained to file an initiating application, it sounds like there is far more at play than suggested by the original post (possibly rightly, to preserve anonymity etc)- possibly some immigration elements briefly alluded to in an earlier post.

I've read your posts here and they came across to me the same way they did to Atticus. The problem seems to be that you're not getting feedback confirming your presumptions, rather than not getting feedback at all.
Based on the experience of people here who have interacted with the Australian Family Law system, what you've outlined here does not constitute an unacceptable risk of psychological harm, especially for a child so young who would have no concept of any of these goings-on.
Nowhere, in this thread at least, have you said what the father is proposing as a suitable way to build a meaningful relationship, given the constraints of the child's age (for now) and geographical separation. The traditional 50/50 or 'every other weekend' models aren't going to be practical in these circumstances. Again, based on experience of people who have been through these matters, the father will need to focus on finding a workable solution rather than hurling rocks at the mother's choices/proposals.
You mentioned existence of a protection order- all the more reason to be focused on the outcome of getting a relationship with the child rather than proving the mother is a terrible person (i.e. engaging in conflict). If he stays out of the personal arguments, it's harder to fall into the trap of losing one's temper and thereby "proving" the allegations.

In the event there are further doubts about my character about this matter I will consider whether a redacted version of the final affidavit can be obtained and then, perhaps after an NDA is signed with the authors of the insults, privately releasing it; although I am not sure if the instructing solicitor and/or Barristers would dis/agree about that.

Are you really suggesting that the thing to worry about here is having random internet forum posters sign an NDA to try and prove them wrong? You might be over-estimating how invested they are in this matter.

 

[Atticus]

To be *clear the *amended reference to 60CC(3)(a) is still in the affidavit that will be filed.

You mean this bit >>

60CC (3) Additional considerations are:

any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child's maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child's views;

So 4-7 months olds can talk now?

all the s60CC points I listed will now feature (pretty much in the form as per my post of 19 June) within the father’s affidavit that will be filed with his initiating action and risk notice at the Federal Circuit Court.

Wow.. It’s in an affidavit… guess that settles it then

C) Can you please tell Glass Half Full GHF that my posts are not about me and/or my ex.

Me tell him? LOL… are you an 8yo .... You should actually read again what GHF wrote & thank him for his sound advice, but you won't do that will you

B) In the event there are further doubts about my character about this matter I will consider whether a redacted version of the final affidavit can be obtained and then, perhaps after an NDA is signed with the authors of the insults, privately releasing it; although I am not sure if the instructing solicitor and/or Barristers would dis/agree about that.

Grow up ya baby… It’s a public forum

Anyway thanks for the giggles champ, but I’ve wasted enough time on your BS, so good luck with all of umm …. THAT

 

[rjm]

He he. Nothing like a good laugh.
StevieB Atticus is one one the nicest people on here. This is the first time I've ever seen him lose his patience with someone.

 

[StevieB]

You cats are funny.

Getting really tribal now with 3 against 1; and still the posts they're repponding to are not fully read beforehand.

Atticus the answer to your latest oversights and personal comments was (as per usual) provided in my previous posts; including how the discrepancy about the child's age came about..

Wow if Atticus is wrong or loses his patience then it must not be his fault hey RJM?

Bottom line; QC Barrister and instructing solicitor firm believe the father's case (as I depicted it) is a worthy cause and that the mother's conduct is south of the FLA; and no-one else in this thread came near that within the context of the individual sections of the FLA I was requesting.

Most of you were too lost in presuming I was the abusive/other bitter/twisted father; yet you claim I have pre-conditined views whilst the oversights are not even owned let alone maturely/politely addressed.

Kind regards,

Stevie.

 

[GlassHalfFull]

Can you please tell Glass Half Full GHF that my posts are not about me and/or my ex.

Uhh, you can tell me yourself. Apologies if I misunderstood the nature of the query. My advice/experience still stands though, regardless of who it is actually for.

And as for whether there's merits to the father's case, well I guess we will just have to see what the eventual outcome is. As Atticus said, it sounds like there's more at play to justify a QC getting involved. Keep us posted. Just don't be surprised if you get some attitude in return if you treat us like your minions.

 

[Tim W]

I work in psychology and support services

Before we go, answer us this...
AHPRA registered psychologist, are you?

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

This is the only item of sensible professional-looking advice you have proposed.

In contentious Family Law proceedings, SRLs often have harder time of it than represented litigants.
Especially when the other party is represented.
Sadly, where there is one lawyer, for the sake of justice, there almost always has to be another.

...(to use the father’s words) demonstrated a genuine father’s rights/perspective to the problem.

There re some lawyers (not necessarily any here) who take the "men's rights" perspective in Family Law.
I am not among them.

 

[Atticus]

Atticus the answer to your latest oversights and personal comments was (as per usual) provided in my previous posts

My only oversight was not realising early enough that you are a time waster & BS artist