QLD Question about supervision (consent orders)

[LouiseThomas]

Hi - another question whilst I think of it

We have orders that state that the father has to have time off work when our son is with him. I am of the belief that he continues to work and has his mother come and look after our son so he can continue with work.

We have hostile relationship and I have always avoided conflict with him but am I within my rights to contravene him given he has not always followed this order? He (in the past) has argued that when I work, I leave our son with my parents or other family and so it's an unfair and biased order. I have our son full time (he gets holidays only) so my argument is, given he has little time with son then this order is important as the child will not get any time with his dad and he is just passing off his parental responsibilities. He has also said that this order deprives him of his freedom and if I contravened the courts would throw it out as its a normal situation for working fathers.

Open to all opinions. I do want to be fair so advice is appreciated.

 

[AllForHer]

You want the kid to spend time with dad, so you want to withhold time all together?

Remember, your kid has a right to spend time with grandma, too.

 

[LouiseThomas]

I know my son needs time with grand mother too, I am just wanting to know if I am within my rights to breach him, given what the orders say.

Legally, is it worth my time?

 

[AllForHer]

Nope. Who looks after the kid during dad's time is dad's decision, not yours, just the same as who looks after the kid during your time is your decision, not his. It's a day-to-day decision, not a major long-term decision. It doesn't require agreement between you.

You say you're high conflict. What are you doing to stop the cycle?

 

[sammy01]

Are you within your rights to contravene him? technically, yes. Sure go for it... Huge waste of time...

Are you within your rights to withhold the child based on the fact that granny is looking after the kid? NOPE>

 

[LouiseThomas]

ok thank you for your advice - these orders were made by consent and stamped by the court. Just wondering why the courts allowed such an order? Or is it open to interpretation?

 

[AllForHer]

Because they weren't made by the Court. They were made by consent. If the parents agree on what they think is in the best interests of the child, as is the case when they agree on consent orders, the Court won't often go against that except in blatantly obvious circumstances where the orders aren't in the best interests of the child.

 

[LouiseThomas]

Ok that makes more sense. So really, the court would override the order because it is not fair or reasonable?

 

[AllForHer]

It might, it might not. There's no way of predicting exactly what outcome the Court will decide in your case.

The better way to handle it is to just be fair and reasonable yourself. If you met a great man and wanted to move in with him, would you think it's fair and reasonable for your ex to have a say about it?

 

[LouiseThomas]

Yes thats why I am wanting to get outside opinions so I know how it all really works.

I did read that having a new partner is not a major long term decision so therefore it means parents don't need to consult each other on it. Is that right, and would the court agree?

I am trying to work out what decisions are day to day and what would be long term - and as mentioned in other post, the orders that gives him day to day responsibility and decision making (when son is with him) would no doubt mean that he can make those decisions without consulting me?