VIC Is Ex Breaching Family Court Orders?

[Zeano]

I have been separated for over 6 months. In the meantime, I haven't seen my kids of 5 and 10.

Recently, the court made an order for me to see the kids every Saturday from 12-2pm with supervision. I made the request to see the kids at mother's home, but my ex-partner is refusing to bring the kids to my mother. She is asking that I only see the kids anywhere but in the presence of my family. The family court orders doesn't specify where I can see the kids.

If she refuses to brings the kids, is she breaching the court order?

Any help would be greatly appreciated .

Thank you

 

[AllForHer]

Does the order specify who the supervisor must be?

 

[Zeano]

Yes, the order has stateded for the kids to be supervised between 12-2 pm every Saturday !

 

[AllForHer]

Yes, I got that part, but supervised by who? Your mother? Your father? The neighbour? The neighbour's pet hamster?

Who did the Court order the supervisor to be?

 

[Zeano]

The supervised is from an agency, which requires $80.00 an hour for supervision !

 

[AllForHer]

Okay, so if you're refusing to use the agency, and she's therefore refusing to provide the kids, the Court is going to have a lot of trouble upholding the argument that she's in contravention. Supervised time at a contact centre has been ordered for a reason, so it's not your place to decide you don't have to follow those orders.

I'd suggest just using the agency like you've been ordered.

 

[Zeano]

I am not refusing the agency, I accepted the agency but she is refusing for me see my kids at my mother's place, X is asking that in order for me to see the kids it has to be at a playground but not a family home,

 

[AllForHer]

Forgive me if this is blunt, but the orders don't say that your time with them can be spent anywhere except the contact centre, correct?

If you agree to something else, great. But if you don't, then you revert to the orders. Not agreeing to change the orders does not amount to a contravention.

 

[sammy01]

So right now - if your ex told you that you could only see the kids once you've driven to the moon and back and provided her with receipts to show where you stopped for petrol along the way then that is exactly what you should do.

So if you want this to pan out well for you, then pay attention. Your job is to establish for the magistrate that you're a good dad. Choosing not to see the kids because of an argument with the ex about location does not help your cause. You also must establish for the magistrate that you are able to put the nastiness of separation / divorce etc etc behind you and work with mum in the best interests of the kids... In short, you can work with mum and you are child focused...

Meanwhile - your ex has a different job right now... What she wants to do is prove that your a crap dad and that there is lots of conflict between you and her. The magistrate understands that high conflict is detrimental to children. So if your ex can cause lots of conflict then she wins and your time with the kids will be minimal.

Is it fair? Nope, but the sooner you understand how to play this stupid game called Family Law the better the result will be for you. So until you have court orders in place, the best thing you can do is learn to say yes... don't argue. Jump through whatever stupid hoops she puts in front of you. The harder she makes this for you the better, especially if you take my opinion and just do as you're told with a smile and a polite thank-you all the way...

So who looks more stupid?

Person A - refuses to see his kids because the ex won't let him see them at his mum's house? Or,

Person B - The mother who makes it almost impossible for a man to see his kids with no good moral reasons?

Person C - The man who sucks it up and does whatever it takes within the rules to get to spend time with his kids?

Person A is the dumbest.... So lets eliminate him.... Now out of person B and C - who is the dumbest? Person B.... So when you walk back into court, which person are you gonna be?

 

[Zeano]

Fair enough, point taken!

Thank you for the help.