QLD Legal Aid Representation for Uncooperative Mothers?

[Cairnsdad]

That's great they got to talk for even 2 minutes as it is a big leap from where you were before. Give the little fella time to adjust to getting calls from Dad asit is likely he isn't used to talking on the phone for long and there is a good chance Mum is leaning over his shoulder making him more uncomfortable. Mine started like that and within a month it was 15 minute calls regularly as they get used to that type of communication.

I wouldn't bother asking for longer because I doubt the Judge will mandate he has talk for a certain time rather I would just get Dad to make the calls as fun and light hearted as possible so the little fella enjoys and looks forward to the calls. The great thing is that within a few months when the next mention is on, Dad can say how fantastic the calls are and how he feels the bond is growing again between them because of the communication which will show the Judge he is positively parenting and then request to change them to facetime which changes everything for the better.

Always focus on the positive not the negative. It is amazing if you focus on simply trying to add 1 extra minute a week to the call how quickly it will build up.

Cheers

 

[AllForHer]

Yes, I think an order for FaceTime is probably going to be more effective than mandating the length of the call. Kids that young just aren't good at phone calls (like I'm 32 and I hate phone calls), and you don't want him to stay on the phone just because he has to, that will just make it into a chore.

But if it's FaceTime, kiddo gets the visual stimulation that really works for kids in that age bracket. Dad can read a book to kiddo or let him pick what colours dad uses for colouring in, or they can play a game together. Lots of options.

Like Cairnsdad, we also had our orders changed so the parent who has the child in their care initiates the phone call to the other parent. It avoid problems like mum just ignoring the call or saying 'She's in the bath'. Works a lot better for us.

 

[JadeGoldCoast]

Facetime makes a lot more sense, thanks for the suggestion! The mother agreed to facetime in mediation but has since stated she never agreed to it (although we have the paperwork but not worth arguing with her). I think I worded my last post wrong. We don't want to force the child to speak if he doesn't want to. Basically the three months before our first hearing when my partner was not allowed contact with his child the mother was allowing 5 calls a fortnight.

Each call was no longer than 1-2 minutes and the calls would be cut off if my partner told his son he missed him or loved him. The calls were always cut off half way through the child's conversation, we would hear someone say 'say goodbye' and the child would stop in his sentence and start saying good bye. Before this, child had always spoken happily with his father on the phone when the child stayed with the paternal grandmother since he was able to talk.

As court came closer the child was continuously playing games on the mothers phone while talking with my partner on loud speaker. We get it is a control thing for the mother, we just want to find a solution that will ensure the child has privacy and can talk freely for as long as he wants, so facetime seems the only way we would be able to ensure this.

 

[JadeGoldCoast]

Hi all, just wondering if I could pick a few brains.

We feel there has been a bit of improvement with the new orders and the mother has been responding to emails about the child which is great, and my partner is getting his one call a week But we are concerned that the mother is still withholding information about the child's appointments that she has been ordered to supply to my partner so he can attend.

For eg, we attended an appointment with the pediatrician yesterday who confirmed the mother has an appointment with the child booked for May but the mother doesn't reply when my partner asks about the appointment. We have emailed the mother on multiple occasions asking for the appointment details and informed her if she didn't reply we would be informing the judge of her decision, but no response. We now want to know how to breach (not sure if that is the correct term) the mother for not complying with the order? What form to use? And when best to do it?

We received our paperwork last night for the ICL so we are feeling a lot more confident with the court case now. Any help appreciated as always

 

[AllForHer]

Mm, I wouldn't bother filing a contravention order application for this. Sure, mum is meant to disclose doctor's appointments, but what would you do if there was no Court to run to every time mum did something wrong?

Think like a parent, not an adversary in Family Court proceedings. Don't focus on what you think is causing a problem, focus on solving the problem itself.

The problem isn't that mum isn't telling you when kiddo's appointment is.

The problem is that kiddo has a doctor's appointment coming up and you don't know when it is.

So how do you solve that? Call the doctor, ask when that appointment is taking place.

Your partner is a parent, too. Why does he need mum to keep his schedule for him?

By all means, include all of this in your affidavit if you wish, but the Court won't see it as a big problem, particularly if it's one that you can basically solve yourselves.

 

[JadeGoldCoast]

Thanks AllForHer, we have already contacted the doctor's that we are aware of and have sent the orders that state the father is to be a part of the process and there is no issues there. The issue is that we cannot contact the doctor's the child is seeing without our knowledge. For example, the speech pathologist. We have no idea who the speech pathologist is so cannot contact their practice for information. We cannot think of a way to solve this issue?

 

[SamanthaJay]

Wouldn't one of the doctors referred the child to the speech pathologist? Round about way to get info, but thinking of AlllForHer's advice, maybe contact the doctors you do know to ask if they provided a referral to a speech pathologist for the child, and maybe they could give you a copy of the referral or at least tell you who it was.

 

[JadeGoldCoast]

Hi SamanthaJay, thanks for your reply. We are aware of one of the GP's that the mother has seen with the child so we will contact them. Our issue is that the mother sees so many different GP's that she could have received a referral from anyone. In saying that, the GP we know of is the GP who originally referred the child to the paediatrician so fingers crossed she can help us

In regards to the orders and the mother not following them completely.. what is the point in having orders if she can pick and choose which ones to follow if we cannot breach her for it? Or are breaches for more important things (not handing over child when ordered etc?). Sorry just trying to get our heads around it.

The mother is also telling the child that he shouldn't be spending time with the paternal grandmother as she is a bad person. We have orders that neither party denigrate or insult the other party or their family in the presence or hearing of the child, but we obviously understand that a court will probably not take a 4 year old's words as gospel, so guessing we are best to let that one slide also and just do our best to reassure the child that he is allowed to spend time with the paternal grandmother and he isn't going to get into trouble.

 

[AllForHer]

Realistically, yes, you could file an application for contravention orders.

But as with any legal proceedings, you should weigh up the risks and benefits.

Risk: Your application may not succeed. Let’s say Mum doesn’t tell you when the appointment is. Is there an explicit order that states she’s meant to tell you when a doctor’s appointment is? Does that order provide time frames? There’s a lot of variables that may provide perfectly reasonable explanations as to why she hasn’t told you when the appointment is, which could lead to the application being dismissed.

Risk: If the application is unsuccessful, you may wind up with a costs order against you.

Risk: More money spent on lawyers, more time in Court, more damage to the co-parenting relationship.

Risk: Running concurrent contravention proceedings over what is basically a minor issue may demonstrate a high level of conflict between the parties in your parenting orders proceedings, and the higher the conflict, the less likely the Court is to facilitate a genuine shared care arrangement.

Benefit: If the application does succeed, what are the likely outcomes? It’s a minor contravention, so maybe a 12-month bond at best, or the order might be removed all together in line with the Court’s obligation to try and make orders that minimise future litigation.

So, I’ll let you decide what all of the above means, but you should understand that the point of having parenting orders isn’t to punish a parent for poor parenting choices, it’s to protect the child’s right to have a relationship with both parents. There are minor contraventions that don’t realistically violate this right in any meaningful sense, and there are major contraventions that do - like one parent stopping the child from seeing the other despite having Court orders.

As for what Mum is saying about paternal grandmother, a) there’s no way to prove it (because you’re right, a four-year-old is not a reliable witness) and b) even if you could, no orders of any description can force a person to act like a normal person - Mum will just come up with more creative ways to influence the child to not want to see grandma.

So, rather than expecting the orders to change Mum’s attitude, Dad needs to find smarter was to minimise Mum’s influence. When the child says ‘Mummy doesn’t like grandma,’ you say ‘Doesn’t she? That’s a shame because we think grandma is awesome! She bakes the best cookies in the world and she loves you so much!’

The child needs at least one of the households to rise above the bickering and do what’s actually best for him, and if mum’s not going to step up to the plate, then it has to be Dad. Parenting first, orders second.

 

[JadeGoldCoast]

Thank you so much AllForHer, you've clarified a lot for us! We were under the impression a contravention was more of a lodged statement that the mother had not complied with an order with some evidence attached. After reading your reply it makes sense that there would need to be some sort of proceeding to prove whether or not that was the case.. we really do not want to make things anymore complicated than it already is.

There is an order that the mother is to keep the father informed of medical appointments and each be at liberty to attend, so I think we will follow your previous advice to state in the next affidavit that the mother is not completely complying and request that the order be amended that the mother is to inform the father of the appointment around the time the appointment is made or perhaps that she has to do her best to give my partner a week's notice of the appointments where possible.. we will have a chat with the duty lawyers at our next hearing and see what they recommend.

We received an email from the mother this morning asking for my partner to agree to an undertaking to keep the child away from the paternal grandmother, we obviously will not agree as the judge made it clear to the mother in court that as she had withdrew her DVO application, she clearly did not have concerns about the child's safety around the paternal grandmother.. the mother's perception of this conversation however appears to be a little off as she is trying to tell my partner that it is the judge's intention to keep the child away from the paternal grandmother (even though he removed the order).

We also received an email from the judges associate this morning that is a reply to an email the mother sent them querying an amended order that she had not agreed to.. the associate had to explain to the mother that none of the orders were made by consent and to ensure to include my partner in all correspondence. We really wish the mother would seek legal advice, we cannot wait to see what the ICL thinks of the proceedings so far and what their perception is on the matters at hand.