Application of S60CC & Child Abduction - Definition

[Tremaine]

This thread, damn...

It sounds like nobody has really explained to the father what the FLA actually does.

The FLA does not tell parents how they must parent, so asking someone to explain how mum’s conduct isn’t abuse or whatever as provided in s60CC is a misnomer in law, which is why nobody can answer it to your satisfaction. When you ask such a thing, all you’re asking for is a personal opinion, and opinions are irrelevant from anyone who isn’t the judge of the case. If the father wants such opinions, send him to a support forum, not a law forum. But if the father wanta information about the legal process, the answer is that if he thinks it’s abuse, he needs to stick to the facts about the suspected incidents of abuse in an affidavit so the judge can develop an opinion for him/herself...

The FLA tells the Court how to decide parenting disputes. It doesn’t tell parents how they should parent.

 

[Atticus]

The FLA does not tell parents how they must parent, so asking someone to explain how mum’s conduct isn’t abuse or whatever as provided in s60CC is a misnomer in law, which is why nobody can answer it to your satisfaction

Very true .... I did do my best to explain why his assumptions around s60CC are not relevant .... You would have thought that the very name on the section he kept banging on about would have been his first clue, ie, >>>>

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 60CC How a court determines what is in a child's best interests .... No telling Stevie though LOL

 

[Tim W]

Further, just because somebody believes something,
no matter how strong that belief is, that doesnt always and automatically make it true.
And even if true, it's not always and automatically admissible.

But some people won't be told.
I'm a bit more worried about the bigger picture harm being inflicted by OP on their "client",
by OP exceeding their professional scope.

 

[StevieB]

No, some people just won’t (accept the truth and) be told will they Tim.


It’s getting really tribal now with <3 against 1; and still the posts they're responding to are not fully read beforehand.


You cats are funny all pitching in to insult/belittle me as a means to help each other misdirect from all your joint oversights.

It’s almost like you can’t handle the fact that new female (non-lawyer) forum poster asked a question many of you prejudged and/or got wrong.


By way of the father’s new representation it seems - even if some of the tribal behavior and one sided commentary here that (misdirects from its own joint oversights in the rush to) suggests the problem was an unwillingness on my part to wholeheartedly just/prima-facie accept both what was being said/provided and the singular *approach that came with it was correct - it was still not unreasonable on my part to disregard (at least) the singular *approach and push on regardless of all the joint oversights because;

1) I was in the position to understand all the background nuances/events; not those in the forum.


2) The pattern (that most here overlooked) the mother’s actions carved out was a typical of an immigration/citizenship domestic abuse exit strategy even if we leave out her violent conduct.


3) Most of you, not only made obvious quick errors/presumptions (contrary to most of the main errors/presumptions; I am not the father or a man, and nor is the actual father possessing any of the trait’s that would be required to even begin to make Tim/other’s initial post mildly correct) that most non lawyers like myself could easily see meant you were not impervious to bias and/or oversight/presumption - but also, you kept making the same/similar oversights even after the initial ones were identified. It was like many of you simply wanted your advice to be accepted/swallowed no matter how much it was questionable, misaligned with the facts, and replete with oversights.


4) Most of you questionably sadly steered away from addressing the mother’s conduct directly in terms of the family law act’s sections I provided/requested; despite;


a) The obviously/considerably less time/effort that approach would have clearly involved if you stepped back, remained neutral, and simply just measured the mother’s conduct with the applicable sections of the family law act. It was like many of you adopted a tribal approach that hypocritically presumed that (just as Atticus/Tim could not possibly make oversights) the mother couldn’t have possibly been the author of; (i) family violence; (ii) domestic abuse; and/or (iii) a false domestic abuse allegation - it must be the man that has the problem and is posting. How dare he want access to his daughter in another state and think the family law act works for him too all whilst the mother flees and questionably claims she is an abuse victim.


b) The fact that doing so seemed to represent, not only a clear preference for seemingly delivering one sided tribal views/opinions that successively failed to measure the mother’s conduct with the applicable sections of the family law act as requested - but also, these oversights lay upon the foundation that might be described as a concerning indifference to how s4AB was not matched with the provided description of the mother’s conduct even though it applied. Almost no-one was exempt from this basic oversight.



5) It was clear that not even the combination of both; (i) the prevalence of unsubstantiated/questionable domestic abuse allegations within the courts; and also (ii) the pattern mentioned within the aforementioned point 2 appeared to be enough to deter the tribal conduct from the above-mentioned biases and/or questionable approaches/advice; including that which wrongly presumed the poster was a father whose interpretations of the family law act don’t work the way it appears he seeks advice on/about.


6) It’s obvious that some of you still fear addressing your own oversights and/or openly acknowledging that the mother’s conduct directly applies in terms of the family law act’s sections that were initially provided.


7) The father’s current pro bono QC and IS Barrister/I-solicitor representation effectively debunks the aforementioned singular *approach taken by some members of this forum/thread (including Tim/Atticus) in various ways that don’t exclude the design of the father’s recently filed Federal Circuit Court affidavit that the QC and IS representation settled; which basically contained most of the family law act references I previously provided as reasons why the mother’s conduct constitutes family violence and/or abuse.

Tim, you made several basic oversights and assumptions (I have detailed some of them in previous posts); including those about the actual father, those that presumed I (a woman) was the father, and also those that failed to indentify the mother’s actions might constitute family violence (s4AB) - so your tribal/hypocritical comments here are interesting.

Atticus you also made some mistakes too. I will list them if you request/persist.

There is nothing wrong in making a mistake but when posters/people’s mistakes; (i) hypocritically/wrongly presume others have made a mistake as a result of their supposed prejudice - when in actual fact any mistake they're hypocritically claiming occurred was actually the result of their own prejudice/presumptions (as is the case here) that caused the mistake they're talking about; and (ii) those hypocritical/wrong presumptions then go on to induce more of the same oversights from other tribal/forum counterparts; then that another story entirely.

The summary is this . . . .


Unless you're all a more reliable source of information than; (i) the father himself; (ii) the father’s QC; and/or (iii) his I-solicitors; then some of you have issues with owning your mistakes/oversights.


Bottom line;


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


B) I’m not responsible for your prejudices/mistakes (Tim and/or Atticus) and/or any tribal/bullying conduct that comes with it and/or seeks to misdirect from, it.


C) Most of you were (and still are) too lost in presuming I was the abusive/other bitter/twisted father; yet many of you hypocritically claim I have pre-conditioned and/or incorrect views whilst your own oversights are not even owned - let alone maturely/politely addressed, updated, and/or owned/contained.


D) Given how one sided almost all the tribal parties views/advice were it is concerning that basic sections of the family law act - such as s4AB - was not matched with the provided description of the mother’s conduct. There is no suggestion here that has anything to do with the above-mentioned point 5.


Kind regards,


Stevie.

 

[StevieB]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

@ Tremaine; your post at 11.29pm on 27 June 2020; thanks for your response

You are incorrect with the assumption about the father there; as the father has seen several solicitors and they have all explained to him what the family law act does. Most measured the family law act with the mother’s conduct as I describe in my above posts; which is one reason why I adopted that approach.

Finally, I can only speak for myself (and the father) but - if you read my posts - I am certainly not suggesting that the family law act “tells” parents how they must parent.

What I ask (my post #19 June 2020) whether - given the provided description of the mother’s conduct and background events - the sections of the family law act I provided apply for the given (or other) reasons.

This (hopefuly) also deals with Atticus’s post of the 27 June 2020 that replied to yours.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

@ Atticus; your post at 1.01pm on 27 June 2020; please see my above response to Tremaine.


You have authored several oversights in this thread (I have already explained several of them in my previous posts {including that above of today which details with s4AB}) whilst responding to my reasonable requests and within reason I think I understand why you did that.


However, what is not quite so clear to me is why you keep making other mistakes/assumptions and/or inciting/commending and/or supporting similar tribal conduct that does the same based on your initial oversights; possibly as a means of misdirection.


Still each to their own.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


@ Atticus; your post at 8.22am on 25 June 2020; please try to refrain from losing control and/or being personal with comments like “BS”.


As, provided you don't lose control and/or become too overly personalized, then I am more than happy to politely joust with you on matters of the law.


Furthermore, contrary to your claim that appears to seek to limit your mistakes to one, albeit misconceived, instance; I have already explained several of your other mistakes in my previous posts including that (above) of today which details s4AB.


Please note that that above post of today doesn’t (as a means to be nice) detail all your other acts of hypocrisy and/or oversight.


For instance in your post (@ 11.07am on 22 June 2020) within this thread where . . . . . .

- Atticus @ 11.07am on 22 June 2020 - ​

“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”​

You hypocritically (after you had already authored a few other oversights) claim that it was (not you, but) supposedly me that’s *rigid and not open to another possibility - including in ways that are at odds with both; (i) the advice from the below-mentioned father’s QC/I-solicitor team; and (i) also how I depicted the family law act in my original/subsequent posts - before then imprudently going on to say . . . .

- Atticus @ 11.07am on 22 June 2020 - ​

“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…”


Whereby you (including via your use of capital lettered “WILL”) hypocritically/wrongly - including in ways that reveal it is you (not me) that is *rigid and not open to another possibility - claim that there is no other possibility to get the father/child relationship established other than supervised visits.


This constitutes but 1 example of another hypocritical/oversight on your part as;


1) It’s the mother that needs to be placed under supervised care. Furthermore, if it is later proven that her conduct constitutes family violence and/or a false domestic abuse allegation then she will not be provided with SPR.


2) Even aside from the commonly overlooked fact within this thread that (as per my previous posts) explains how the mother has attacked/abused the father/baby at a publicly witnessed location; there is no reason why the father can't fly to the state with his parents/sisters where the mother lives, have unsupervised contact with his daughter in that way, and propose interim orders upon this basis.


3) Failing point 2 and/or with it the contact/care session could even happen at a private surgery/hospital room. Not in the least, as the mother provides absolutely no reliably/independently verified reason for her self-styled exclusive care arrangement and/or unofficial supervised care session requests and her actions are at odds with the family law act including s4AB.


I am happy to detail (what I believe are) more acts of hypocrisy and/or oversight for you in a dedicated post; particularly if it means you will regain control and/or stop personalizing your posts and hypocritically calling me an azz and/or bul$hitter.


The father has an urgent hearing next at the Federal Circuit Court week so I am looking forward to that for him. After meeting with the QC/I-solicitor (the father as he speaks poor English) I am even more confident that he will win this case on the merits of the family law act as I have explained them.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Thanks Stevie

 

[Atticus]

It’s getting really tribal now with <3 against 1

A REASONABLE person actually looking for insight/opinion, may conclude that as EVERY person that has given you the time of day to respond has decided your assumptions & whole approach are wrong, that just maybe, maybe you are wrong .... Not you though, you double down the nonsense .

Your posts are troll like, time wasting rubbish.... I'd rather debate a pigeon... same outcome but slightly less annoying

 

[Tim W]

Your posts are troll like, time wasting rubbish.... I'd rather debate a pigeon... same outcome but slightly less annoying

And that statement, coming from a layman.
Imagine what the actual lawyers must be thinking....

 

[Atticus]

And that statement, coming from a layman.
Imagine what the actual lawyers must be thinking....

Bazinga! ... Good to see the Elitist Timay is still with us ...... LOL.

Imagine being a lawyer & still getting paid even when your advice is crap... How good is being a family law lawyer

 

[StevieB]

A REASONABLE person actually looking for insight/opinion, may conclude that as EVERY person that has given you the time of day to respond has decided your assumptions & whole approach are wrong, that just maybe, maybe you are wrong .... Not you though, you double down the nonsense .

Your posts are troll like, time wasting rubbish.... I'd rather debate a pigeon... same outcome but slightly less annoying

Yes I had wondered what exit strategy you would choose once I offered to list your oversights.

Best regards,

Stevie

 

[StevieB]

Bazinga! ... Good to see the Elitist Timay is still with us ...... LOL.

Imagine being a lawyer & still getting paid even when your advice is crap... How good is being a family law lawyer

Yes, that is exactly the state of the industry.

Imagine being a lawyer and jumping to conclusions and then pretending the oversight was because others (whom are not lawyers) supposedly did it. Embarrassing

Imagine also being a lawyer (or even a forum poster) & still getting praise/paid even when your advice is crap.

No wonder then the best advice comes from a free lawyer/QC; even if they do deeply conflict with the free forum advice.

No matter how much this thread didn't turn out to be a feather in your cap; I still like you though Atticus.

Best regards,

Stevie.