Sammy01, you have bull$h1tted about so much in the post. You did this, you said that, but no never mention why. I don’t care Sammy01 you are full of it. Your so prim and proper aren’t you, so right, never wrong. Is that much of a deal to mention wrong and right, to you it is.
VIC False Accusation to Get an Intervention Order - Help?
- Thread starter I_m_determined
- Start date
- Status
So Mauxal.
You wrote "Please do not think I’m arguing with you, Sammy. You helped me a lot too and I forever remember that. But I’m here to just express my point of view."
No worries. But yes Mauxal you are arguing with me. That is cool - this place is about expressing ideas and getting intelligent insights from others. I agree, there is a risk with AVO's and yes they can be used by unscrupulous parents to keep kids away from the other parent. That is the risk in accepting. I guess, my thoughts are if one parent is going to do all they can to remove a child from the other parent's life they will succeed.
I have no doubt the reason the family law courts are so slow is because of the back log of cases where even with court orders, one parent refuses access. So I do agree. There is a risk in accepting without admission because the parent could use the avo to full advantage. But I reckon those twits will always do that regardless of any court order whether it be an AVO or a family court order.
Now Alert - No you did not run and hide - perhaps you should have. You definately should have apologised because the suggestion that my opinion is worth less than your's simply because I'm a teacher is rude, arrogant and warrants an apology.
But - respectfully, when people post here and moralise about other people's decisions that become problematic.
My opinion is that given the complexities of family law and the expense, accepting an AVO without admission is a reasonable strategy. Hence my objection to people getting on here and moralising about the difficult choices individuals are often confronted with as a result of family break up.
So let me use my case as an example. Interim AVO made by the police. For various reasons out of my control it took nearly 3 months from the first mention to the second mention, where I accepted without admission. However, I had managed to communicate through my solicitor to the prosecutor that I would accept without admission IF the ex would agree to me spending some time with the kids. Bitter pill to swallow. Having not seen my kids for 3 months and the reality that fighting the AVO could cause me to spend many more months without seeing the kids I made the call. Accept without admission. I then got to see my kids the following weekend. So Alert, if you want to tell me I have no morals because of it, well I disagree.
Next - People posting here have a responsibility to make sure their opinion has some support within the structures of the legal system. So when Alert suggests walking into court and 'accidentally' dropping evidence. Well, frankly that needs correcting. That is not how the legal system works. That sort of advice comes from this school of law.
Great on-screen drama but not reality - just like 'accidentally' dropping 'evidence' is not even close to good advice. It is theatrics it is wrong. There are rules about how evidence is submitted and Subsection 5 para 3 on page 2 definitely does not say that evidence can be accidentally submitted via the floor. This is just loony stuff and needs correcting.
That said - Alert's opinion that solicitors act on behalf of their client is good advice. I think often punters do as solicitors say. If a doctor said take this tablet, you take the tablet - often the same comparison can be made with solicitors. Punters blindly take solicitor's advice without question.
But then you started ranting about 'crazy' and 'straitjackets' and some other stuff about being 'programmed'? Again, I think this is wrong. Nowhere in any legislation is there a rule that states people are put into straitjackets, put in padded rooms or locked up simply for expressing an opinion that is different. So I'm simply expressing that the stuff you're writing is incorrect.
Finally, you're personal attacks on me and my anatomy are offensive and are unwarranted. Again, an apology is warranted.
You wrote "Please do not think I’m arguing with you, Sammy. You helped me a lot too and I forever remember that. But I’m here to just express my point of view."
No worries. But yes Mauxal you are arguing with me. That is cool - this place is about expressing ideas and getting intelligent insights from others. I agree, there is a risk with AVO's and yes they can be used by unscrupulous parents to keep kids away from the other parent. That is the risk in accepting. I guess, my thoughts are if one parent is going to do all they can to remove a child from the other parent's life they will succeed.
I have no doubt the reason the family law courts are so slow is because of the back log of cases where even with court orders, one parent refuses access. So I do agree. There is a risk in accepting without admission because the parent could use the avo to full advantage. But I reckon those twits will always do that regardless of any court order whether it be an AVO or a family court order.
Now Alert - No you did not run and hide - perhaps you should have. You definately should have apologised because the suggestion that my opinion is worth less than your's simply because I'm a teacher is rude, arrogant and warrants an apology.
But - respectfully, when people post here and moralise about other people's decisions that become problematic.
My opinion is that given the complexities of family law and the expense, accepting an AVO without admission is a reasonable strategy. Hence my objection to people getting on here and moralising about the difficult choices individuals are often confronted with as a result of family break up.
So let me use my case as an example. Interim AVO made by the police. For various reasons out of my control it took nearly 3 months from the first mention to the second mention, where I accepted without admission. However, I had managed to communicate through my solicitor to the prosecutor that I would accept without admission IF the ex would agree to me spending some time with the kids. Bitter pill to swallow. Having not seen my kids for 3 months and the reality that fighting the AVO could cause me to spend many more months without seeing the kids I made the call. Accept without admission. I then got to see my kids the following weekend. So Alert, if you want to tell me I have no morals because of it, well I disagree.
Next - People posting here have a responsibility to make sure their opinion has some support within the structures of the legal system. So when Alert suggests walking into court and 'accidentally' dropping evidence. Well, frankly that needs correcting. That is not how the legal system works. That sort of advice comes from this school of law.
Great on-screen drama but not reality - just like 'accidentally' dropping 'evidence' is not even close to good advice. It is theatrics it is wrong. There are rules about how evidence is submitted and Subsection 5 para 3 on page 2 definitely does not say that evidence can be accidentally submitted via the floor. This is just loony stuff and needs correcting.
That said - Alert's opinion that solicitors act on behalf of their client is good advice. I think often punters do as solicitors say. If a doctor said take this tablet, you take the tablet - often the same comparison can be made with solicitors. Punters blindly take solicitor's advice without question.
But then you started ranting about 'crazy' and 'straitjackets' and some other stuff about being 'programmed'? Again, I think this is wrong. Nowhere in any legislation is there a rule that states people are put into straitjackets, put in padded rooms or locked up simply for expressing an opinion that is different. So I'm simply expressing that the stuff you're writing is incorrect.
Finally, you're personal attacks on me and my anatomy are offensive and are unwarranted. Again, an apology is warranted.
You are being completely naive, ignorant and deliberately combative.
In theory, it would be great to stand up for what you believe in, but in my case (and I believe Sammy's case - see below) standing up for what you believe in may not be pragmatic, realistic, financially possible and ultimately not good for the kids. myself and to some extent my ex.
My case, in brief, I was given a 2-year VRO (completely without merit). Ex offered a 4-month conduct agreement order. I had more than enough grounds/evidence to apply to have the VRO cancelled, go to a hearing and win as well as apply for a counter VRO. The first two options would have taken 6 months plus (i.e longer than the CAO) the last option would have severed any chance of myself and my ex having an amicable relationship, the kids would have suffered. The kids would have also suffered if we'd gone to trial.
The stress on both myself and my ex would have been huge as well as the cost. It was hard accepting the CAO, I had to roll over like a little puppy. Some may see that as a "weak" thing to do. I disagree. In some ways, the easy option would be to go to trial. I'd win, she'd pay my court costs, but really no-one wins. She's the mother of my kids. I need her to be healthy and happy, at the very least for the sake of the kids. If she's good, they're good. Having a broken parent is not good.
"So let me use my case as an example. Interim AVO made by the police. For various reasons out of my control it took nearly 3 months from the first mention to the second mention, where I accepted without admission. However, I had managed to communicate through my solicitor to the prosecutor that I would accept without admission IF the ex would agree to me spending some time with the kids. Bitter pill to swallow. Having not seen my kids for 3 months and the reality that fighting the AVO could cause me to spend many more months without seeing the kids I made the call.
Accept without admission. I then got to see my kids the following weekend. So Alert, if you want to tell me I have no morals because of it, well I disagree"
Excuse me? I’m not suggesting you have no morals, there is no need for you to be this way toward myself.
You don’t know me and I am a kind person who would not harm anyone.
So why is it you be this way towards me?
I totally respect what you have said, this is your opinion. Move on
You don’t know me and I am a kind person who would not harm anyone.
So why is it you be this way towards me?
I totally respect what you have said, this is your opinion. Move on
Why would you say I am going to tell you that you have no morals? I will tell you though, you are very nasty to me, can you please expand why this is?
I didn’t want you to be sorry, because you did say sorry, I would like to know why?
I respect you, these are your decisions?
You mentioned Sammy01, what about Sammy01?? So are you laughing at my expense.
What kind of response is ‘No. Sorry’, if you read my reply to your 1st post, can you please explain your response of No. Sorry.
I would respect your reply on this. You started something and now can’t expand on this.
- Status
Similar threads
