NSW Child Starting Visitation with Father - Family Law Opinions?

[MartyK]

The most relevant child psychology here is that children of tender age (5 and younger) have short memories - a child's memory of a parent will start to become hazy if they don't see a parent for three or so days, and in case it was unclear, that's both parents, not just the mother...

Correct.

Although, like you know, orders do not always reflect this recommendation for a 3 year old.

but -I think the teacher analogy might still work

sammy, the child we are talking about is 3 years old, not school aged, and the analogy was in reference to progressive time orders for a parent who is a stranger to the child v going into the care of strangers at school i.e. teachers.

Any comparison between a 'school aged child' (not a 3 year old) who is estranged from a parent (regardless of reason) having those protective measures usually put in place by the Court, such as progressive time, with reasons of "but the child goes to school with strangers (teachers)", is ambitious to say the least.

I realise you are a teacher sammy, this too was my previous professsion. Like I said, (at 1) there is already an element of supervision of teachers. Not so the case for unfettered unsupervised orders for a stranger (estranged parent or otherwise).

I could be mistaken, but I'm not sure the OP said the 1.5 hours was unsupervised. I thought this might be time she was supervising herself?

 

[sammy01]

OK I will play...

3-year-olds are in pre-school often for longer than your average school day. Not the case with this child - who has not left mum's side apparently....

My concern is that the primary carer seems to be the issue. Marty I think you're right - dad has had 1.5 hours of visits supervised by mum. Dad now wants both unsupervised visits and a no-contact order from mum during those visits.

Why not? Now dad also wants to move from 1.5 hours of supervised visits with mum looking over the shoulder to 5 hours of UN-supervised visits. Tell me again where the problem is? Oh and the OP never expressed concerns for the wellbeing of the child while with dad...

 

[MartyK]

Why not? Now dad also wants to move from 1.5 hours of supervised visits with mum looking over the shoulder to 5 hours of UN-supervised visits. Tell me again where the problem is?

The father now wants time to move from 1.5 hours supervised (we assume supervised by the mother) to 5 hours unsupervised time with a no contact order (number of days not stated) to overnight time (combination of daytime and overnights and number of nights not stated). I believe this would make the orders sought by the father progressive!

Tell me where I have disagreed with progressive orders?

 

[AllForHer]

First, I just want to say that time supervised by the mother is just an extension of the child's time with the mother. It's not genuine time with the father. To demand the right to contact the father or the child during just five hours of time together is, quite frankly, laughable and obstructive.

Second, it seems there is a lot of 'concern' and 'worry' about how children cope with more time with the other parent, but how a child copes with seeing a parent less after separation doesn't even make it on to the radar. Children of divorce frequently go from seeing both parents every day, to suddenly only seeing one parent every second weekend - where is the progressive plan for coping with that change?

 

[sammy01]

Martyk
Look I don't think our opinions are too far apart - The only dispute is your comments about schools. Look - Yes schools are safe GOOD. But so is dad.

Oh and you wrote this..." Would most members of the community (not just the separated community) be happier leaving their children in the care of a teacher at school, or with a complete stranger? Whether that be a biological parent or otherwise. Probably not."

So the real problem here is that mum chose to make the non-biological parent a complete stranger to his own child. Clearly he wasn't consulted in that decision... There after the original poster's position become problematic...

The fact that she hasn't responded also suggests she's not interested in the reasoned, although somewhat diverse opinions expressed here.

 

[MartyK]

I don't disagree with what you are saying sammy about a parent obstructing a relationship between the other parent and child and nor have I stated anywhere that I do.

In terms of what I have said about school v a stranger, perhaps have a read again, with a wider mind to that of just this mother (includes parents who are estranged on their own accord et al, remembering school is a general view as school does not apply to this child) and you might 'get' what I am saying. My comments only relate to school aged (I didn't specify age), and someone who is a stranger to a child regarding progressive orders.

It's Children of divorce frequently go from seeing both parents every day, to suddenly only seeing one parent every second weekend - where is the progressive plan for coping with that change?

I do agree this is something that probably needs more focus on. Unfortunately orders, at times, depending on the entire story, can be a abalancing act for the Courts and a matter of which will be the more damaging to the child based on what they know of social science.

I think it pertinent to mention that not all EOW orders are a result of an obstructive parent and it is hoped in most cases (where there are no safety concerns identified for a child) that the Court will make orders that offer more appropriate time than just alternate weekends. For those children/orders made where a parent does not seek more time than EOW (for whatever reason), this creates an even bigger issue.

 

[ClaiireQld]

Ok this wasn't helpful at all. Perhaps I did not word things right. I didnt walk away... i spent every day until she was 15 months old trying to get him to spend time with her and be around at all. This was only met with abuse or complete ignoring and silence for long periods.

The DVO came about due to him deciding he would live at my house, extremely verbally abusive and controlling, and would take money constantly. He had not wanted any part of the childs life.

I moved because I was completely by myself and it was too hard? I moved back to where the child was born and my family.

She is breastfed for bed time at night. It is valid and thats a matter of opinion. As far as the courts views on it they at least biew attachment as important until the age of 4 and then things can move at a different pace.

He has full access to the child. He can see her anytime he wants but he chooses not to as he does not want me present with him alone (his gf doesnt). I first spoke to him when i got the papers and he was understanding and willing to work together.

The attitude changed straight away when he told his gf of this. What needs to be understood is he had no interest in being a parent and not for my lack of trying - he cannot just walk back in and take her overnights when she does not know him. She is 2. The visits we have had i was present and his mum.

Thanks everyone for replying but no one seems to have understood what I said.

 

[AllForHer]

I think everyone understood what you said, but I think you haven't been told what you'd hoped to hear.

The Court holds that unless a parent poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child, then it's in the child's best interests to have a relationship with both parents, and since it doesn't sound like dad poses any risk at all to the child, then the Court is going to permit the child to have a relationship with him, and it's not going to be in accordance with your wishes or demands. That's the long and short of it.

Stating the Court views attachment as important until the age of 4 is true, but not in the sense that you seem to think it applies - it applies to the child developing a meaningful relationship with both parents, not just you, the mother. Breastfeeding an infant is persuasive argument for limiting overnights, breastfeeding a three-year-old at night isn't.

Now, it doesn't sound like dad volunteered to limit his involvement with the child. It sounds like you put up some insurmountable obstacles that made him opt out. Insisting that his time with his child be supervised with you, when you and he obviously don't get along, is a recipe for disaster because it would likely expose the child to conflict, wouldn't you agree?

So, the bottom line is that he's probably going to be granted unsupervised time with the child...

 

[ClaiireQld]

I keep replying and it won't post it.

No one has understood what I said. I guess it wasn't clear. Nevermind

 

[ClaiireQld]

Nope it isn't understood at all. We broke up when she was 2 months old and i tried that entire time broken up to get him to be around. His response was always that it was not his problem. All I wanted was for them to have that relationshi but he would not spend any time with her.

I got the DVO because of what I said. He had no interest in her existence... so I did not try after that. I am in no way blocking this, I am trying to facilitate it and he is the one making it extremely difficult.

He doesn't have unsupervised time now... He has seen her 3 times and with me there and his mum.

My point in this was really to ask what is generally ordered when the child doesnt know the father. (And no this is no because of me. I am not a person who holds a grudge, I have been genuinely nothing but willing to aid this relationship development - but she is 2 and it cant just be rushed into with a ridiculous attitude on his part). She does not attend day care so she is not used to that hand off with strangers.

I don't care to respond again because helpful replies aren't those that attack when ive only given minimal details. Jumping to assumptions based on personal experiences with others character isnt going to necessarily match who i am and no one has.

My entire life is this child and making sure she is safe and happy. I did not simply pick up and leave and be in another relationship.

Anyway thanks for anyone who wrote more kindly and gave useful info.