NSW Mother Attempts to Discredit Father - Family Court?

[Alert]

As i mentioned, no child matters have been addressed for some time. I understand it is usual practice for custody to be addressed first, however that is not the case with this matter and property is being addressed first... a large asset pool. The mother was offered $850k cash to walk away, and declined. An ICL is at the top of the fathers requests when child matters are finally addressed.

The assets have been obtained off of the fathers hard work but the mother ensured it was kept in both names, despite the fact she had little contribution. She cannot show in any way shape or from any physical or financial contribution. It is what is is, the father accepts this and has offered a 50/50 split.

The main concern for the father is the child. You are correct with your suggestion the mother see's the child as a financial asset. we suspect that after property settlement she may lose interest again in the child, however as a narcissist she is able to use the child to assert some authority of which she receives gratification, so who knows?

Philly, when you say walk away, are you saying walk away from the child??

If that’s the case, you know she could have walked, then also returned.

I’m thinking why did she choose what she did, the only thing I can think of is she is going to try full custody, which I believe she is in la la land to expect that in this life time.

Do you know if she wants to stay at the property??

If the father is prepared to go 50/50 in the property settlement, is he able to pay her out if she wants to stay at the residential property??

I don’t know who is living where so this is my thoughts.

If the father is going 50/50 with the property settlement, the property would need to be sold if he is unable to pay her out, so why not sell the property now??

I wouldn’t offer her any money, the more money you have the better representation.

How long do you need to wait for Family Court?

I’ll keep in contact. Take care, my thoughts are with you Philly.

 

[sammy01]

Simply disagreeing with you ALERT does not make me wrong. It just means I have a different perspective on this stuff to you. Some of your personal attacks are uwarranted.

Some of your advice is definately wrong and I would go so far as to say the advice is dangerous. Hence it needs correcting. Philly, do not go to the school or clubs or anyone else phishing for information about mum. WHY? Thanks for asking.
1. Teachers should refuse to enter into any conversation along those lines - But what would I know? I'm a teacher.... Yes, if a teacher observers welfare concerns the teacher must notify. However, it is very very unlikely that you will get your hands on any notifications due to privacy.... But you could call Doc's and try. Get back to us and let us know how you go.... Actually, don't. Don't even waste your time making the call. I can tell you that you're on a hiding to nothing.
2. Often final court orders say something about the parents being restrained from discussing the details of the case with third parties. While your interim orders might not say something along those. None the less, You might want to think about why such orders tend to exist.
3. What happens when mum finds out? You will have given her some evidence to suggest that you guys are going about trying to alienate her from the child. That doesn't look good in court.

Alert??? Take the kid to a psychologist / school counsellor / someone he can trust to read a book to? DANGEROUS advice. WHY? Thanks for asking.
1. If you take the kid to any sort of health professional, psychologist you need to tell mum and preferably get mum's consent. It is called "shared parental responsibility". To take a kid to any sort of psychologist without mum's consent with the purpose of trying to get the kid to say stuff about mum is called parental alienation.
2. NOTHING said to a psychologist paid for by dad will be accepted in court. There is an implied bias based on dad paying for it and if mum isn't involved.
3. What happens when mum finds out? You will have given her some evidence to suggest that you guys are going about trying to alienate her from the child. That doesn't look good in court.
4. Courts appoint independent specialists AND no they are not free.
Dont believe my 'facts' have a read...
Independent Children's Lawyer scale of fees (costs recovery) - Legal Aid NSW
If you think the child needs to see a psychologist, then discuss it with mum. But don't go doing it for the purpose of trying to phish for information from the child.

BTW i didn't mention an ICL because Philly mentioned it on page one. So that was already covered.

ALERT - you suggested asking the boy about the family event. Again VERY BAD ADVICE. The kid should not be put in a position to choose between mum and dad kids should be sheltered from that stuff and it can appear like parental alientation. WHY? Well because that is what it is. It would appear much of the advice you're giving is the same stuff we're criticising the mum for doing in this case. Hey Philly, here is a thought, Grandma's birthday happens to fall on a weekend the kid is with dad. Or the kid's cousing has a 21st birthday. They organise the party without a thought to these court orders. All of mum's family don't have to turn their life around to suit the court orders. I reckon you should let the kid go with no pre-conditions, no payback just agree that is good parenting and as a result looks good in court.

Last thing before I choose to provide good advice, rather than defend myself. I'm not sure if I said anything was 'fact'. I don't like having my words twisted. In this case my words appear to have done a 2 hour yoga class led by ALERT they have been that twisted. ALERT - you're welcome to criticise my advice. But as a courtesy provide some foundation for it... Not 'disheartened' or 'disguisted' but something that shows I'm wrong. Go on dare ya... That is the courtesy I have shown you to help you understand how problematic your advice is.

so back to advice...
Look generally kids need to be done first. But sometimes a solicitor will look at the situation and suggest doing assets first. It is possible in this case that is good advice. As Alert stated - mum wants time with the kid for the purposes of lining her pocket. This that obvious. So I reckon solicitor is thinking that if you guys get assets sorted the mum will run away with her wad of cash and the kids matter will sort itself. Also with an offer of $850K on the table the mum might find herself with a cost application case against her for wasting court time by not accepting a good offer. But I can only assume here not 'fact' because there has been little info provided about the nature of the asset pool.

so you had not mentioned the size of the asset pool. So my thinking was $50K because it often costs 100k to run a case all the way through. If mum doesn't have huge funds $50k to go away is a good take.. My mistake, given the size of the asset pool.

 

[Alert]

Good morning Sammy01,

You dare me, that is quite immature. This is not a GAME.

You are confusing Philly.

1. I did not mention once to ask questions about the mother from the teachers etc.

2. I did not mention once to take their boy to a psychologist.

3. Philly and partner have not reached Final Orders. This is Interim Orders, that rule about speaking of the case stands for all Orders.

4. I believe Philly and partner know how to say something a long the lines as ‘my son needs help with reading, maths etc.
In no way the mother is not mentioned.

5. When did I mention to explain the mother’s behaviour.

6. I am not twisting, you do this yourself. Your comment regarding ‘fact’ is an actual comment you made, now that is ‘fact’.
I have no reason, why I would say this if you did not.

7. I totally believe you are twisting my words. I never mentioned anything about the father paying for a psychologist.

8. You say your a teacher, so you’ve had your head in a book most of your life.
Is there anywhere you can tutor me on regarding real life experiences, I’m asking you anything?

9. I did not say to Philly mention the mother’s behaviour to any sporting club etc. I did say mention any change in behaviour of the young boy. There are ways to word this for the benefit of the child.

10. Regarding Philly having access to any information, this is accessible through the ICL for before the Final Orders if or when he/she feels this is necessary. The solicitor can access any information regarding the mother.

11. The ICL will access all information regarding all parties.
Philly does not need to try and access this information herself.

12. I never ‘told’ the father to hold his child from going anywhere? I ‘suggested’ ask his child, I believe that is okay to ask a young boy. This is not alienating, the boy does have a voice in my opinion.

You contradict yourself?

If you were sincere you would remember what you have said to Philly.

You answer your own questions, which gives a weak minded or vulnerable person the answer without thinking about the question and will agree with you, I see this as calculating and cunning.

You ‘assume’ situations without knowing?

I could say plenty more towards what you have said in your post, why would I bother though? I know the answer, I’m not going to answer this for you?

Lastly, why would you say, ‘go on dare ya’, that is so childish.

 

[Alert]

Simply disagreeing with you ALERT does not make me wrong. It just means I have a different perspective on this stuff to you. Some of your personal attacks are uwarranted.

Some of your advice is definately wrong and I would go so far as to say the advice is dangerous. Hence it needs correcting. Philly, do not go to the school or clubs or anyone else phishing for information about mum. WHY? Thanks for asking.
1. Teachers should refuse to enter into any conversation along those lines - But what would I know? I'm a teacher.... Yes, if a teacher observers welfare concerns the teacher must notify. However, it is very very unlikely that you will get your hands on any notifications due to privacy.... But you could call Doc's and try. Get back to us and let us know how you go.... Actually, don't. Don't even waste your time making the call. I can tell you that you're on a hiding to nothing.
2. Often final court orders say something about the parents being restrained from discussing the details of the case with third parties. While your interim orders might not say something along those. None the less, You might want to think about why such orders tend to exist.
3. What happens when mum finds out? You will have given her some evidence to suggest that you guys are going about trying to alienate her from the child. That doesn't look good in court.

Alert??? Take the kid to a psychologist / school counsellor / someone he can trust to read a book to? DANGEROUS advice. WHY? Thanks for asking.
1. If you take the kid to any sort of health professional, psychologist you need to tell mum and preferably get mum's consent. It is called "shared parental responsibility". To take a kid to any sort of psychologist without mum's consent with the purpose of trying to get the kid to say stuff about mum is called parental alienation.
2. NOTHING said to a psychologist paid for by dad will be accepted in court. There is an implied bias based on dad paying for it and if mum isn't involved.
3. What happens when mum finds out? You will have given her some evidence to suggest that you guys are going about trying to alienate her from the child. That doesn't look good in court.
4. Courts appoint independent specialists AND no they are not free.
Dont believe my 'facts' have a read...
Independent Children's Lawyer scale of fees (costs recovery) - Legal Aid NSW
If you think the child needs to see a psychologist, then discuss it with mum. But don't go doing it for the purpose of trying to phish for information from the child.

BTW i didn't mention an ICL because Philly mentioned it on page one. So that was already covered.

ALERT - you suggested asking the boy about the family event. Again VERY BAD ADVICE. The kid should not be put in a position to choose between mum and dad kids should be sheltered from that stuff and it can appear like parental alientation. WHY? Well because that is what it is. It would appear much of the advice you're giving is the same stuff we're criticising the mum for doing in this case. Hey Philly, here is a thought, Grandma's birthday happens to fall on a weekend the kid is with dad. Or the kid's cousing has a 21st birthday. They organise the party without a thought to these court orders. All of mum's family don't have to turn their life around to suit the court orders. I reckon you should let the kid go with no pre-conditions, no payback just agree that is good parenting and as a result looks good in court.

Last thing before I choose to provide good advice, rather than defend myself. I'm not sure if I said anything was 'fact'. I don't like having my words twisted. In this case my words appear to have done a 2 hour yoga class led by ALERT they have been that twisted. ALERT - you're welcome to criticise my advice. But as a courtesy provide some foundation for it... Not 'disheartened' or 'disguisted' but something that shows I'm wrong. Go on dare ya... That is the courtesy I have shown you to help you understand how problematic your advice is.

so back to advice...
Look generally kids need to be done first. But sometimes a solicitor will look at the situation and suggest doing assets first. It is possible in this case that is good advice. As Alert stated - mum wants time with the kid for the purposes of lining her pocket. This that obvious. So I reckon solicitor is thinking that if you guys get assets sorted the mum will run away with her wad of cash and the kids matter will sort itself. Also with an offer of $850K on the table the mum might find herself with a cost application case against her for wasting court time by not accepting a good offer. But I can only assume here not 'fact' because there has been little info provided about the nature of the asset pool.

so you had not mentioned the size of the asset pool. So my thinking was $50K because it often costs 100k to run a case all the way through. If mum doesn't have huge funds $50k to go away is a good take.. My mistake, given the size of the asset pool.

You are using Grandma’s birthday as an example, come on Sammy01, Grandma.

I believe you are one who likes a debate? Sammy01, you have come across someone who enjoys this also and I believe I’m good at this.

I believe you are someone who thinks, what they say is always correct, you don’t care to listen to others, because they are wrong. There is no right or wrong.
I have noticed you like to comment when you feel offended, mmmm, I know that trait.

In a post I read of yours to Philly, you say, ‘there are no IF’S’ and you also say, ‘get back to me after the mother’s charges’, Don’t quote me word for word will you Sammy01, what I’m saying to you is, ‘show some respect towards Philly and her partner’.
Philly is confiding with you about a concern of hers, her partner and the young boy, and you say that.

The mother is a psychopath. Until you have experienced this in life and not read about this from a text book, you will never understand what the mother is capable of, never.
You will never understand what the young boy is exposed to, you will never understand what Philly and her partner will experience as time progresses closer towards court and after court.

Oh and to say I’m giving advice about the same as what the mum is being criticised of, come on Sammy01 for real.

Philly does NOT criticise the mother.
I do NOT criticise the mother. Why would you say that ??

I don’t need to provide foundation to you why I have said, disheartening etc etc. You just don’t get it Sammy01.

Give Philly and her partner some moral support instead of your sarcasm.

Don’t be offended, someone needs to say this to you and not unfortunately me, unfortunate for you.

 

[sammy01]

That is right this is not a game. Some of your advice is bad. So the stuff you wrote is in bold. It will make it easier for all concerned..


“You are confusing Philly.” No I’m expressing an opinion that is different to yours. U’m is that not allowed?

1. I did not mention once to ask questions about the mother from the teachers etc.

YOU WROTE "Philly, the father needs to speak with the teachers at his sons school and tell them about his concern for his boy."

Implied in that is talking about the realities of the boy’s life in the two homes. So yep let’s move on.



2. I did not mention once to take their boy to a psychologist.

Yes you did you mentioned a school counsellor – they are child psychologists. Let’s move on, nothing to see here folks.

3. Philly and partner have not reached Final Orders. This is Interim Orders, that rule about speaking of the case stands for all Orders.


Good so you agree, it is a bad idea to go talking about this stuff to the people at the sport club / school that the kid might attend, or for that matter some person for the kid to read to in the hope they start talking about mum... So we agree your advice is bad.

4. I believe Philly and partner know how to say something a long the lines as ‘my son needs help with reading, maths etc.
In no way the mother is not mentioned. Yes the mum is mentioned. YOU WROTE.

“That’s why I suggest he could see the School councillor or someone he could take a book and read too, something he enjoys, he will begin to feel comfortable with this person and say things that his MOTHER has told him not to say to his father.”



You are advising these people to get the kid to sit down, do something he enjoys with some random stranger with no training for the purpose of trying to illicit information from the kid. This is manipulative. It is dangerous, it is very bad advice. At least if it was a child psychologist (with mum’s permission) but nope just some random person with no training? This is very bad advice.


5. When did I mention to explain the mother’s behaviour. Read number 4 again. “and say things that his mother has told him not to say to his father.”

6. I am not twisting, you do this yourself. Your comment regarding ‘fact’ is an actual comment you made, now that is ‘fact’.
I have no reason, why I would say this if you did not.

My opinion is my opinion. It is not FACT.. Well not all of it. Fact today is Sunday. Opinion, it might rain tomorrow. I’m expressing opinions. With some factual information interspersed.

Let me give you an example shared parental responsibility is a fact. It is a legal term. IT applies unless a court is satisfied one parent is dangerous. I don’t doubt the mother here is a nutter. But the original poster has not mentioned severe child abuse. Shared parental responsibility is a presumption in family law and can only be revoked when a parent is proven to be negligent.

7. I totally believe you are twisting my words. I never mentioned anything about the father paying for a psychologist.

My mistake. Let me write that again. My mistake. Yep I’m big enough to admit when I get it wrong. Are you? But when you said see a school counsellor or someone else. I assumed you meant a professional because that could almost be defended. But suggesting you sit the kid down with a close personal friend / or some other random until they’re comfortable enough to divulge information about mum is so totally out there that I didn’t assume that is what you actually meant. But I’ve covered this.

That said, part of the problem with forums like this is that it is easy to mis-understand, mis interpret the words of another. That why it is always advisable to proceed with caution with the advice you give and the responses you provide.

8. You say your a teacher, so you’ve had your head in a book most of your life.
Is there anywhere you can tutor me on regarding real life experiences, I’m asking you anything?

Yep I’m a teacher. So that means I have some real world insights into how schools work. So I think this allows me to provide a little bit more advice on this than someone that doesn’t work with the school system. Common sense so far. In recent yrs those books my head is stuck in have been law books. Teaching a HSC subject called ‘legal studies”. Does it make me a family law solicitor? NO. Does it mean I’ve studied some of the subjects at university that family law solicitors also have to study? YES. So I reckon this gives me some credentials.

Tutor you in real life experience? Yep 3 lessons. My 3 kids. They live 90% of the time with me. I’m a male, I was accused of DV. I’ve come through the system and I got a good result.

But this is a personal attack on me. Your choice to make personal attacks based on my profession is causing you to lose credibility.

9. I did not say to Philly mention the mother’s behaviour to any sporting club etc. I did say mention any change in behaviour of the young boy. There are ways to word this for the benefit of the child.

I agree, you did not say to mention mum’s behaviour to any sports clubs. I AGREE. But, that is the intention. Phishing for information. Again, happy to apologise if I got it wrong, but when you’ve already stated getting the kid to sit and read, or do something fun with some 3rd party for the explicit and intent of phishing from information from the kid, I think I can be let off on reading your words as talking to others to phish for information.

10. Regarding Philly having access to any information, this is accessible through the ICL for before the Final Orders if or when he/she feels this is necessary. The solicitor can access any information regarding the mother.

I agree. The solicitor / ICL can seek to subpoena reports from Doc’s.

11. The ICL will access all information regarding all parties.
Philly does not need to try and access this information herself.

YEP I AGREE. YOU’RE RIGHT.

12. I never ‘told’ the father to hold his child from going anywhere? I ‘suggested’ ask his child, I believe that is okay to ask a young boy. This is not alienating, the boy does have a voice in my opinion.

Again, I agree. Yes you suggested he ‘ask the child’ I agree you believe that it is okay to ask a young boy about his opinion. I happen to disagree with your opinion. I offered a different solution that doesn’t involved asking the kid. Not putting the kid in a position where they have to choose between upsetting mum or upsetting dad and a solution that looks good in court and is well common sense.


You contradict yourself?

Yeah, nah – that is a contradiction.

If you were sincere you would remember what you have said to Philly.

Again I agree. I am sincere. I sincerely and respectfully disagree with some of your opinions. That is all.

You answer your own questions, which gives a weak minded or vulnerable person the answer without thinking about the question and will agree with you, I see this as calculating and cunning.

Again, forget the personal attacks. “Weak minded” or ‘calculating and cunning”. Nope just a punter with a different opinion to you. That does not make me wrong, cunning weak or anything else, just a punter that has a different opinion to you.

You ‘assume’ situations without knowing?

YEP – with respect that is all we can do on a website such as this, work off the information provided. I try to provide sensible suggestions. So for example, I made a comment about getting back to us after the mother has had her day in court over the assault charges. This is good advice. See right now mum has been accused. There is this thing called innocent until proven guilty. I’m not making this up. But hey, what ever…. So mum has a presumption of innocence. IF she is found guilty, especially if she does jail time then that is a game changer and Philly, get back to the good folk here asap. But until there is a conviction it is not relevant to your family law case.

I could say plenty more towards what you have said in your post, why would I bother though? I know the answer, I’m not going to answer this for you?
Good.
Lastly, why would you say, ‘go on dare ya’, that is so childish.

U’m ok look poor choice of words. The point I was making is that some of your advice in my opinion is not good advice. Where I have expressed an opinion that differs from your opinion I have done my best to explain my reasons. In saying go on dare ya. I’m actually asking you to explain why you think I’m wrong.

Sadly when you said ‘lastly’ YOU DIDN’T MEAN IT. SIGH.

SO yep I used Grandma’s birthday as an example. I was simply trying to illuminate that the people who organised the family gathering might not have thought about mum and the court orders. Sometimes simple oversights happen and as per my suggestion you can turn it into a win by being fair, reasonable and accommodating. OR you can, as you’ve suggested put the kid in the middle of it and let a 10 yr old decide. Again, you’re welcome to your opinion, I’m welcome to mine..

U’m I have not been sarcastic towards the original poster. My sarcasm, is directed at you and I’m not offended by any of your comments.


Philly take advice from everyone, make your own way. But be very very careful with anyone who feels the need to make the sort of personal attacks this punter has made on me.

chill.

 

[Philly2020]

Philly take advice from everyone, make your own way

This is always my objective. I never take anything i read on here as 'legal advice'.

Now people, simmer down time.

You both had given helpful advice, and as I mentioned earlier I can appreciate a different perspective. I've been in the family law system long enough to know that because something is the obvious right thing to do, and common sense would tell you it is right, does not mean the courts see it that way.

Alert, you words have been endearing and as i stated, its good to hear positive reinforcement from a third party.

Sammy01, I have no doubts that you've lived through similar with a psychopath yourself, perhaps this explains your cynicism and sense of humour, neither are a bad thing.

We do live in rural NSW, 30km drive takes about 40 minutes.

The 850k cash offer was to walk away from property and assets. Not the child, however it is expected once he can no longer be used for financial gain she may lose interest in the child once again.

 

[Alert]

I don’t need you to put in bold your comments, that was helpful though I must say.

Again I will explain, Philly and partner are not dealing with any normal parent.

You can take what I say however you wish, it is your priority, visa versa.

You do not understand when I say speak to the teachers etc about the young child, this is the boys welfare, if you had the experience you believe you have, not from a book. You would know how this is accomplished without anyone speaking about the mother.

I won’t mention to you what I do as a career, as this does psychology influence people of how they feel and what THEY actually believe, into believing that person must be right as they work in ? field and went to uni ? years.

You obviously can’t accept when someone discredits what you say, what is the issue with that, please don’t answer me, I know the issue.

If you wish to continue with ‘who is right or wrong’, go for it, waste your time.

 

[sammy01]

Yep Philly, I have dealt with a psycopath or two in my time. I prefer the term 'nutter' I'm not a psychologist. I can't diagnose. But some of the stunts are pretty remarkable. Alert you seem to have the same opinion. Isn't it nice when we all agree....

And try as I might, I still struggle to get my head around CRAZY....

Now I know there is a contradicion in the next paragraph.

I reckon the solicitor was smart to try and sort assets first in the hope mum would just go away. That is common sense. BUT... Mum is nuts, loopy. From a different planet. So I went through this crap about 8 yrs ago. My ex is still nasty and vindictive. Everything is an attack. I've long since moved on and am living my happily ever after. So based on my experience, while I've stated I think the solicitor is smart to try and get assets done first in the hope that will cause mum to disapear.... I actually (sadly) think you should be trying to get the child stuff done first if at all possible. WHY? Well we're not dealing with normal. You're dealing with nasty and vindictive and she isn't gonna go away. She is addicted to the drama of it all. There is a good line from a book called Breaking Up. The author's last name is Larkin. He says there is one things solicitors love hearing. Do you know what it is? When a client says "id rather give my money to my solicitor than my ex".... I reckon this nutter is one of them. And in doing assets first, you'll be giving her a huge amount of cash. She might use that to fight over child access. That will be a huge problem for you guys. She will have a huge pool of cash and you will have to liquidate assets to maintain the fight. It wont be about the kid. It will be about fighting fighting fighting in some crazy land vendetta to prove that she is the better parent.


I'd strongly encourage you, if at all possible to get the child's matter dealt with first.

AND if mum is loopy and especially if found guilty and does jail time then you could get primary care. Now if that happens mum's piece of asset pie goes does. Right now I reckon she has a case for more than 50%. WHY? Greater need, 50/50 shared care and the length of the relationship. Now I'm not saying she will get more than 50% of assets but a solicitor could make that case. BUT, if the child matter gets sorted and especially if mum misses a court mention or two while behind bars then you're gonna get more than 50% care and that would then alter her capacity to make such a substantial claim on the assets.

Yep agreed 30km in rural nsw is nothing.

 

[Alert]

Yep Philly, I have dealt with a psycopath or two in my time. I prefer the term 'nutter' I'm not a psychologist. I can't diagnose. But some of the stunts are pretty remarkable. Alert you seem to have the same opinion. Isn't it nice when we all agree....

And try as I might, I still struggle to get my head around CRAZY....

Now I know there is a contradicion in the next paragraph.

I reckon the solicitor was smart to try and sort assets first in the hope mum would just go away. That is common sense. BUT... Mum is nuts, loopy. From a different planet. So I went through this crap about 8 yrs ago. My ex is still nasty and vindictive. Everything is an attack. I've long since moved on and am living my happily ever after. So based on my experience, while I've stated I think the solicitor is smart to try and get assets done first in the hope that will cause mum to disapear.... I actually (sadly) think you should be trying to get the child stuff done first if at all possible. WHY? Well we're not dealing with normal. You're dealing with nasty and vindictive and she isn't gonna go away. She is addicted to the drama of it all. There is a good line from a book called Breaking Up. The author's last name is Larkin. He says there is one things solicitors love hearing. Do you know what it is? When a client says "id rather give my money to my solicitor than my ex".... I reckon this nutter is one of them. And in doing assets first, you'll be giving her a huge amount of cash. She might use that to fight over child access. That will be a huge problem for you guys. She will have a huge pool of cash and you will have to liquidate assets to maintain the fight. It wont be about the kid. It will be about fighting fighting fighting in some crazy land vendetta to prove that she is the better parent.


I'd strongly encourage you, if at all possible to get the child's matter dealt with first.

AND if mum is loopy and especially if found guilty and does jail time then you could get primary care. Now if that happens mum's piece of asset pie goes does. Right now I reckon she has a case for more than 50%. WHY? Greater need, 50/50 shared care and the length of the relationship. Now I'm not saying she will get more than 50% of assets but a solicitor could make that case. BUT, if the child matter gets sorted and especially if mum misses a court mention or two while behind bars then you're gonna get more than 50% care and that would then alter her capacity to make such a substantial claim on the assets.

Yep agreed 30km in rural nsw is nothing.

Good advice Sammy01, I actually mean that.
I am a strong minded person and if I feel something needs to be said I will say it, that’s just how I roll.

When you mention dealing with child matter before property settlement. I am in total agreement with you.

 

[Alert]

This is always my objective. I never take anything i read on here as 'legal advice'.

Now people, simmer down time.

You both had given helpful advice, and as I mentioned earlier I can appreciate a different perspective. I've been in the family law system long enough to know that because something is the obvious right thing to do, and common sense would tell you it is right, does not mean the courts see it that way.

Alert, you words have been endearing and as i stated, its good to hear positive reinforcement from a third party.

Sammy01, I have no doubts that you've lived through similar with a psychopath yourself, perhaps this explains your cynicism and sense of humour, neither are a bad thing.

We do live in rural NSW, 30km drive takes about 40 minutes.

The 850k cash offer was to walk away from property and assets. Not the child, however it is expected once he can no longer be used for financial gain she may lose interest in the child once again.

Hey there Philly,

Yes things did get a little hot between Sammy01 and myself, this can be healthy, even though it does not sound it at the time.

For me, I respect Sammy01 for defending himself, I really do, that is such an important trait everyone needs.
If you can’t defend yourself, what hope do you have defending anyone else.

I do ‘strongly agree’ with Sammy01 when he mentions to deal with the property settlement before family court.
This is something I can’t quite grasp.

I don’t see the need waiting for the property settlement when a young boy is involved with a psychopath, I’m not just throwing that out when I say psychopath, I know this woman is a psychopath and I back up what I say 100%.

I just can’t get my head around it. For me I get this gut wrenching feeling that the property settlement is more important to you both. I say this because you are both aware of the mother’s issues and the young boy continues to spend time with her, you are both aware this is unhealthy for him.

The property is materialistic, the young boy has feelings. I don’t get it. Just because the solicitor says that’s how to do this, in the meantime you watch your innocent young boy visit the house of horrors.

Don’t feel offended Philly, it is what it is.
I would be lying to myself if I was to say anything different.
For me I did choose my boys over the property, see how I used the word ‘choose’, this is what you are both demonstrating.

I didn’t choose and will never choose anything over my boys.
The amount of property/money means nothing, you can’t compare your property/money with your child.

I see it this way, you are both ‘choosing’ property/money, over your young, innocent, fragile child, please tell me if I’m mistaken and I will apologise, I don’t how this can mistaken as you have said on many occasions, you are waiting for the property settlement. This is your choose, no-one else’s.

There is no excuse why this is occurring. Why you both are choosing the property settlement before family court.

The young boy is at his psychopath mothers, and you just turn a blind eye until the property settlement. You are not doing this young boy any justice.

Philly I’m saying this as I hope you both begin to consider the young boys feelings.

I am aware you will not appreciate what I believe to be true.
You would have heard the phrase,
‘you need to be cruel to be kind’. I’m doing exactly that.