After child protection supervised access for three years, they made him agree to consent orders in the federal court that access be supervised, at that point they CP withdrew, 3 weeks later he sought unsupervised access in his response. I did not report it to the police at the time because I was scared, for me and the children, but in 2015 he admitted in an affidavit that he put a gun to all our heads but he said there was no cartridge in the gun. I recently reported the incident to police and am awaiting to see what happens, I did get an IVO, I've had 6 over the last 7 years, the last one was issued last year and valid for 5 years. It was taken to the children's court by Child Protection because orders were issued in the federal court for unsupervised access.
VIC Family Court - When is an Application Considered Filed?
- Thread starter Malissla
- Start date
-
- Tags
- family court
After child protection supervised access for three years, they made him agree to consent orders in the federal court that access be supervised, at that point they CP withdrew, 3 weeks later he sought unsupervised access in his response. I did not report it to the police at the time because I was scared, for me and the children, but in 2015 he admitted in an affidavit that he put a gun to all our heads but he said there was no cartridge in the gun. I recently reported the incident to police and am awaiting to see what happens, I did get an IVO, I've had 6 over the last 7 years, the last one was issued last year and valid for 5 years. It was taken to the children's court by Child Protection because orders were issued in the federal court for unsupervised access.
Are you receiving any legal advice? It seems to me you are being led down the wrong path by Child Protection.
The last FVIO should have referred to the Family Court/FCC orders.
The last FVIO should have referred to the Family Court/FCC orders.
When the federal court gave him access child protection stopped it happening, I rely on them more than a court, the court put the children at risk, child protection did their job, in my experience they are the only ones I can rely on, I have yet to come across a competent lawyer, the ones I have seen are brainless.
That’s precisely something they would say.
Here’s an example from a case I am very familiar with...there had been countless notifications, dv, mental health issues, child abuse allegations...basically allegations being flung around left right and centre.
Child Protection had been requested to join as party. Although they do not always accept the request, for this particular matter they did. Anyway, on the 1st day that the matter was listed for final hearing, child protection arrived at the Court with their Barrister. Both sides were also represented, the ICL and ICL barrister was also in attendance. Upon entering the Court, Child Protection immediately sought for the matter to be adjourned until after they had conducted investigations. The Judge denied the request based on the expense that would be incurred by all of the parties if the hearing was delayed.
This did not deter the Child Protection barrister who in no uncertain terms informed the judge that whether the trial went ahead or not, child protection would still be conducting their investigations and if they found that the children were at risk in one or both of the parents care, then they would be immediately applying to the Children’s Court for Orders...so the ‘costs’ incurred by the parties in having to attend the trial could be much greater. The judge was definitely not happy when he adjourned the matter!
Can I make an application that an order requesting Child Protection to join as a party under s91B?
Is this Vic? There are possible jurisdictional issues involved in Vic and why I suspect the OP is being forced back to the FCC/Family Court. Though surprised none of this brought up at the FVIO.
Last edited:
And this goes to prove that Orders issued by the Federal or Family Court can indeed be overridden by Children's Court Orders. Am I right in assuming the "much greater costs" would have arisen due to the matter being put back before the court after the final hearing?
If your statement was true in all matters there would be no need to go back the FCC or Family Court.
Barrister used the judge's own justification. Hard to backtrack from there. Suspect if the judge had a found a different reason he/she may have proceeded with the trial.
Similar threads
