This is a hard one to navigate. It really depends on what allegations have been made against you as to whether supervised access will be deemed necessary. On one hand, accepting supervised time with the kids is basically like saying you agree there's a risk and supervised time is what's best for the children. On the other hand, if the allegations are serious, the facts are persuasive and you're rather blasé about the whole thing, you risk looking like you're not sensitive to the kids' needs.
So, first question, will the judge make such decisions at first hearing? It's highly likely that interim orders will be made at first hearing, but it's impossible to know what they might be. The whole process is like an observation period for the Court - if it orders supervised time and that proceeds without issue, it might be less inclined to continue supervised time at the next hearing, and likewise in the opposite circumstances.
So, you can expect interim orders at first hearing. Just make sure you've applied for them in the first place.
Second question, what happens if the respondent doesn't appear, and/or doesn't file any documents? The Court will probably adjourn the matter until another interim hearing, but if your judge is anything like the judge we had, interim orders might be made in her absence. Again, impossible to know.
Will taking your lawyer make a difference? Maybe. They're more attuned to the right child-focused terminology - they refer to children's rights, not parent rights, and they know not to commit the cardinal sin of using the word 'custody' in place of 'parental responsibility'. They also know to say 'the kids deserve to see their father' rather than 'the father deserves to see his kids'. But, realistically, it depends on which judge had your case in their docket. Sometimes, lawyers make errors, too.
In our case, for example, the respondent's lawyer suggested that the child should spend less time with her father because 'it's mother's intuition'. The judge didn't like that at all.
Personally, we never took a lawyer for interim hearings. We had three, and we had a mixture of success and failure, but I don't think having a lawyer present would have made a difference for us. If you know what you want, and you know how to communicate why that's what's best for the kids, you're doing what is expected, anyway.
Will the judge set another hearing date? More than likely. If orders are made for another mediation session (common) and/or a post-separation parenting course (also common), it will give you time to complete both of those before the next hearing date so the judge can see if it has resulted in progress. But yes, the next hearing date will ordinarily be set at the interim hearing.
Finally, what's considered a reasonable amount of time? This is an unknown, but why are you using this wording? Be specific. Use something more like "that within 28 days of the date of these orders, the parents shall do all things necessary to complete enrolment as required at the agreed contact centre."
So, first question, will the judge make such decisions at first hearing? It's highly likely that interim orders will be made at first hearing, but it's impossible to know what they might be. The whole process is like an observation period for the Court - if it orders supervised time and that proceeds without issue, it might be less inclined to continue supervised time at the next hearing, and likewise in the opposite circumstances.
So, you can expect interim orders at first hearing. Just make sure you've applied for them in the first place.
Second question, what happens if the respondent doesn't appear, and/or doesn't file any documents? The Court will probably adjourn the matter until another interim hearing, but if your judge is anything like the judge we had, interim orders might be made in her absence. Again, impossible to know.
Will taking your lawyer make a difference? Maybe. They're more attuned to the right child-focused terminology - they refer to children's rights, not parent rights, and they know not to commit the cardinal sin of using the word 'custody' in place of 'parental responsibility'. They also know to say 'the kids deserve to see their father' rather than 'the father deserves to see his kids'. But, realistically, it depends on which judge had your case in their docket. Sometimes, lawyers make errors, too.
In our case, for example, the respondent's lawyer suggested that the child should spend less time with her father because 'it's mother's intuition'. The judge didn't like that at all.
Personally, we never took a lawyer for interim hearings. We had three, and we had a mixture of success and failure, but I don't think having a lawyer present would have made a difference for us. If you know what you want, and you know how to communicate why that's what's best for the kids, you're doing what is expected, anyway.
Will the judge set another hearing date? More than likely. If orders are made for another mediation session (common) and/or a post-separation parenting course (also common), it will give you time to complete both of those before the next hearing date so the judge can see if it has resulted in progress. But yes, the next hearing date will ordinarily be set at the interim hearing.
Finally, what's considered a reasonable amount of time? This is an unknown, but why are you using this wording? Be specific. Use something more like "that within 28 days of the date of these orders, the parents shall do all things necessary to complete enrolment as required at the agreed contact centre."
