My view is different to the above. I'm inclined to agree with your first lawyer about having very little chance of a Court making orders that time with the mother be supervised, and I think the likelihood of getting an order for sole parental responsibility is even less.
I don't mean to belittle your position, but there are some issues in the facts that I think would be cause for doubt in the Courtroom.
First, your first post said you've tried to be accommodating of her wishes to see the kids, but you've then said your only request was that she have someone trustworthy present. Is that where she was 'uncooperative'? Because most parents tend to be 'uncooperative' when the other parent is dictating that their time with their child must be supervised, even though there has been no abuse against the children themselves.
Second, you've said that if you accidentally miss one phone call, she then calls 30 more times. Since she only sees the kids three times a year, it's fair to assume that phone calls are probably a fairly important component of the kids' capacity to enjoy a meaningful relationship with their mother, so do you accidentally miss the next 30 phone calls as well? Or do you advise her that you'll get the kids the call her back during the times you agreed at mediation?
Third, mum is living several hours away now and has been for four years, and you said you've had to take the children to her, rather than her coming to collect them, so the threat of her coming to your house and breaking a window isn't exactly a real, immediate or ongoing threat, is it?
There's no abuse against the kids, and it seems most of her focus in communication is about the kids, so I am inclined to wonder if the abuse and the conflict stems from her frustration about being unable to speak to or see the kids on a regular basis, rather than because she's on a vendetta against you? Would the conflict dissipate if, for example, phone calls were willingly facilitated, time spent with increased and supervised time done away with?
Fourth, the children are getting to an age now where their fears, if genuine, would manifest as action, such as refusing to speak to their mother on the phone (which, I note, you've also said you don't enforce), or refusing to see her during the times scheduled, yet you've indicated they do still talk to her on the phone and still see her three times a year. Unusual, for a child of 12 under advice from a counsellor to continue engaging someone that has, over five years of very little contact, led them to fear for their life...?
Fifth, you don't have the support of any expert witnesses to show mum is a danger to the kids - an FVO, sure, but no breaches, no convictions, no DHS involvement, not even a counsellor who will support no contact for what has been described as a highly distressed child, nor a lawyer who thinks supervised access is within reach. Forgive the bluntness, but those are extraordinary odds to find such a broad spectrum of experts, but a quantity of zero advising there's an actionable risk to the kids.
As I said, I don't meant to belittle your position, and I know from personal experience how hard Court can be for dads, but if a mother came to me on this forum and presented the same set of facts, I would have the same apprehension as to the reality of the situation that I do here.
I am concerned that perhaps you're contributing to this situation more readily than you are either aware or otherwise prepared to admit, and I fear that will injure you if you end up in Court. ..
I don't mean to belittle your position, but there are some issues in the facts that I think would be cause for doubt in the Courtroom.
First, your first post said you've tried to be accommodating of her wishes to see the kids, but you've then said your only request was that she have someone trustworthy present. Is that where she was 'uncooperative'? Because most parents tend to be 'uncooperative' when the other parent is dictating that their time with their child must be supervised, even though there has been no abuse against the children themselves.
Second, you've said that if you accidentally miss one phone call, she then calls 30 more times. Since she only sees the kids three times a year, it's fair to assume that phone calls are probably a fairly important component of the kids' capacity to enjoy a meaningful relationship with their mother, so do you accidentally miss the next 30 phone calls as well? Or do you advise her that you'll get the kids the call her back during the times you agreed at mediation?
Third, mum is living several hours away now and has been for four years, and you said you've had to take the children to her, rather than her coming to collect them, so the threat of her coming to your house and breaking a window isn't exactly a real, immediate or ongoing threat, is it?
There's no abuse against the kids, and it seems most of her focus in communication is about the kids, so I am inclined to wonder if the abuse and the conflict stems from her frustration about being unable to speak to or see the kids on a regular basis, rather than because she's on a vendetta against you? Would the conflict dissipate if, for example, phone calls were willingly facilitated, time spent with increased and supervised time done away with?
Fourth, the children are getting to an age now where their fears, if genuine, would manifest as action, such as refusing to speak to their mother on the phone (which, I note, you've also said you don't enforce), or refusing to see her during the times scheduled, yet you've indicated they do still talk to her on the phone and still see her three times a year. Unusual, for a child of 12 under advice from a counsellor to continue engaging someone that has, over five years of very little contact, led them to fear for their life...?
Fifth, you don't have the support of any expert witnesses to show mum is a danger to the kids - an FVO, sure, but no breaches, no convictions, no DHS involvement, not even a counsellor who will support no contact for what has been described as a highly distressed child, nor a lawyer who thinks supervised access is within reach. Forgive the bluntness, but those are extraordinary odds to find such a broad spectrum of experts, but a quantity of zero advising there's an actionable risk to the kids.
As I said, I don't meant to belittle your position, and I know from personal experience how hard Court can be for dads, but if a mother came to me on this forum and presented the same set of facts, I would have the same apprehension as to the reality of the situation that I do here.
I am concerned that perhaps you're contributing to this situation more readily than you are either aware or otherwise prepared to admit, and I fear that will injure you if you end up in Court. ..
