Hey there Louise, ask your Solicitor, like I said
Hey Scruff, what about other SOCIAL networks, you know how the Globe can see
NSW Interim Orders and Decision - Purpose of Affidavit?
- Thread starter Louise too
- Start date
-
- Tags
- affidavit
Do you get me Scruff?? The post I posted you did give me the impression of, you know, I’m sure you do?
Dunno about others, but hitting the same profile of Facebook a few times too many times will influence their algorithms - particularly the "people you may know" nonsense. If the person is observant, they can look at those profiles and find the common denominator in their friends lists which will give you away.
I didn’t feel anything wrong right? I have this dude, everything I say, he comes back with his opinions, that’s cool with me. Then when I give my opinion about his opinion he attacks, it’s quite funny to me how someone can bother with this. Read my other posts
Old mate - I think the thing here is that facebook posts are not reliable evidence. So what if the ex told you she was working when she was actually partying?
I'd also question the validity of a letter from the boss saying you have to work. Frankly, that letter suggests you're prioritising the kids over work. We all have commitments like work - some of us are very fortunate to have family friendly work hours. Those of us that don't have to find arrangements to make it all work. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER.
My main point is this - Don't get bogged down in the detail. The only detail that matters is what the legislation states
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 65DAA Court to consider child spending equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent in certain circumstances
I have pasted the absolute best bit of the legislation for your purposes below at the bottom of my rant - what you're asking for is inline with the legislation... Just focus on that and forget about he said she said. I can not emphasise this enough. Way to many cases have been blown because the parents want to use court to prove the ex is a twit A LIAR or a party animal instead of proving they're case about when the kids should spend time with them.
I have a few casual observations for you to consider.
1 - The legislation doesn not include emoji's as a form of communication. I think this is a good thing.
2 - The legislation does not mention facebook - another good thing.
3 - This is the biggest bit, so come in tight and pay attention.... "Substaintial and signficant time"is weekends" and days that do not fall on "weekends". That is the law. Which is exactly what you're asking the court to provide court orderst that are in line with the law. So keep your case simple and focus on the legislation. On that point the legislation also emphasises "best interest of the child". The legislation does not focus on facebook or whether or not mum or dad reckon they have to work rest or play... Nor does the legislation have a particular emphasis on emoji's. Yep i know, mentioned that one already, but some jokes just get better with age.
4 - The legislation is federal - I've noticed some posts recently which seem to suggest that the rules are different in each state. This is dealt with under sections 51 and 52 of the constution.
Here is a link to explain
U'm, Oh go on admit it. That was funny.
If that doesn't make it obvious then read this
Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia - Wikipedia
It's the vibe. I rest my case... Oh man, I should be getting paid for this stuff.
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 65DAA Court to consider child spending equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent in certain circumstances
Note 1: The effect of section 60CA is that in deciding whether to go on to make a parenting order for the child to spend substantial time with each of the parents, the court will regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
subsection (5) for the factors the court takes into account in determining what is reasonably practicable.
subsection (2), a child will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if:
(a) the time the child spends with the parent includes both:
(i) days that fall on weekends and holidays; and
(ii) days that do not fall on weekends or holidays; and
(b) the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:
(i) the child's daily routine; and
(ii) occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and
(c) the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.
I'd also question the validity of a letter from the boss saying you have to work. Frankly, that letter suggests you're prioritising the kids over work. We all have commitments like work - some of us are very fortunate to have family friendly work hours. Those of us that don't have to find arrangements to make it all work. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER.
My main point is this - Don't get bogged down in the detail. The only detail that matters is what the legislation states
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 65DAA Court to consider child spending equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent in certain circumstances
I have pasted the absolute best bit of the legislation for your purposes below at the bottom of my rant - what you're asking for is inline with the legislation... Just focus on that and forget about he said she said. I can not emphasise this enough. Way to many cases have been blown because the parents want to use court to prove the ex is a twit A LIAR or a party animal instead of proving they're case about when the kids should spend time with them.
I have a few casual observations for you to consider.
1 - The legislation doesn not include emoji's as a form of communication. I think this is a good thing.
2 - The legislation does not mention facebook - another good thing.
3 - This is the biggest bit, so come in tight and pay attention.... "Substaintial and signficant time"is weekends" and days that do not fall on "weekends". That is the law. Which is exactly what you're asking the court to provide court orderst that are in line with the law. So keep your case simple and focus on the legislation. On that point the legislation also emphasises "best interest of the child". The legislation does not focus on facebook or whether or not mum or dad reckon they have to work rest or play... Nor does the legislation have a particular emphasis on emoji's. Yep i know, mentioned that one already, but some jokes just get better with age.
4 - The legislation is federal - I've noticed some posts recently which seem to suggest that the rules are different in each state. This is dealt with under sections 51 and 52 of the constution.
Here is a link to explain
If that doesn't make it obvious then read this
Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia - Wikipedia
It's the vibe. I rest my case... Oh man, I should be getting paid for this stuff.
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 65DAA Court to consider child spending equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent in certain circumstances
Note 1: The effect of section 60CA is that in deciding whether to go on to make a parenting order for the child to spend substantial time with each of the parents, the court will regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
subsection (5) for the factors the court takes into account in determining what is reasonably practicable.
subsection (2), a child will be taken to spend substantial and significant time with a parent only if:
(a) the time the child spends with the parent includes both:
(i) days that fall on weekends and holidays; and
(ii) days that do not fall on weekends or holidays; and
(b) the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:
(i) the child's daily routine; and
(ii) occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and
(c) the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.
Um... Hey scruff. I'm a bit confused. Your comment about clicking on a Facebook post will influence the algorithm... that was not an attack on another poster? It was just stating that u believe clicking on a particular link is likely to shape the outcome of who appears most? True?
Or have I missed something?
Or have I missed something?
Correct, and you're not alone in confusion alley. I was simply answering a direct question.
I have no idea what that response is about. People need to remember that this is not social media - it's a place for people to find help, therefore a certain amount of care needs to be taken when posting.
Hi Louise too... Getting back to the point of your inquiry.
By all means make sure your solicitor is aware of the full facts and all your concerns, HOWEVER.. an affidavit should be kept as brief and succinct as possible..
Family law solicitors love long affidavits, it's easy money... page after page of whoa that will never be read by anybody that matters. When the other party is served and is outraged by your version of events, an equally long response affidavit is filed... $$$, solicitors LOVE it.. As far as the court is concerned, they want to know the practical issues in dispute, the facts, and what each party is bringing to the table to resolve the issues.. As pointed out by others, what you are seeking is reasonable and the legislation is on your side.. Keep it succinct, good for your case and good for your hip pocket..
By all means make sure your solicitor is aware of the full facts and all your concerns, HOWEVER.. an affidavit should be kept as brief and succinct as possible..
Family law solicitors love long affidavits, it's easy money... page after page of whoa that will never be read by anybody that matters. When the other party is served and is outraged by your version of events, an equally long response affidavit is filed... $$$, solicitors LOVE it.. As far as the court is concerned, they want to know the practical issues in dispute, the facts, and what each party is bringing to the table to resolve the issues.. As pointed out by others, what you are seeking is reasonable and the legislation is on your side.. Keep it succinct, good for your case and good for your hip pocket..
Atticus, your explanation was straight to the point. I do believe to place as much evidence you have in the affidavit.
From experience after experience, a judge couldn’t use what my solicitor would say as it is not in the affidavit.
I understand costs, believe me, $86,000.00 in 4yrs. If I didn’t produce evidence then, I would need to produce the evidence the court hearing, so I would end up paying for this twice.
