VIC What to Do with Interim Intervention Order?

[miguel]

I disagree.



Not true. The Magistrate can order it so.



Depends on which happens last. Whatever happens last takes precedence.

In Victoria, a VLA solicitor advised me yesterday that due to recent amendments in Family Violence Protection Act 2008 Vic magistrates can't removed children from an order,.

Alarmingly children are automatically included in orders now too. This has a massive impact on Dads. And they are handed out like confetti. As one magistrate said, the legal bar for the applicant is extremely low.

If you live in Victoria put the ALP last on the ballot otherwise you are endorsing this.The above is the ALP's law enacted when Brumby was Premier, amended heavily since Andrews.

With regards to precedence of state IVO's and federal orders, the differences still apply. Communication is the big one here. Don't risk it if you have an IVO. I was advised by VLA many Dads have lost access even with federal orders.

 

[sammy01]

Look the whole AVO thing is a real problem. Yup, they're handed out like lollies at a kids party. In NSW, you can't self-rep if you want to cross examine the accuser. So if you can't afford a solicitor you're going no-where. Kids being put on them. Yep pain in the arse... But big picture... It doesn't matter.

So lets assume you get the kids off the thing. You go to the school and pick them up. Technically, nothing illegal etc. But a dumb move without mum's consent. But even if there wasn't an avo, dad is still in the same situation. Can't see the kids without the ex agreeing or court orders. My thinking is AVO's do cause undue stress at times and I'm sure they get used as a foot up in family law.... But unless there is an established history of on-going abuse the AVO ain't gonna mean all that much to the end result when it hits family law.

 

[Rod]

In Victoria, a VLA solicitor advised me yesterday that due to recent amendments in Family Violence Protection Act 2008 Vic magistrates can't removed children from an order,.

VLA is wrong, or maybe depending on the context of the discussion, didn't elaborate on the nuances of the law.

The recent amendments made it easier to get IVO for children, but it is not mandatory UNLESS the magistrate finds family violence on the child has occurred.

Alarmingly children are automatically included in orders now too.

This may be something police do now. But the magistrate still has to be satisfied family violence on the child has occurred. Admittedly the definition of family violence is very wide these days and can include watching an argument between parents.

The ALP is less of a concern than the liberals in Vic. Guy is always spouting how he'll be tougher on law and order if elected. The libs backed the changes in Parliament (example from Vic Hansard 2017: Mr Pesutto (Hawthorn) — We support the amendments. We raised, and I personally raised, in the second-reading debate here a little while ago some concerns about the operation of this amendment to the Family Violence Protection Act 2008, not because I cavil with the overall objectives — there is a bipartisan approach to that —).

And yep, whatever court you last appear in has precedence. Fed law no longer has the dominance it once held in Family Law parenting orders.

 

[miguel]

Look the whole avo thing is a real problem, yup they're handed out like lollies at a kids party. In NSW you can't self-rep if you want to cross examine the accuser. So if you can't afford a solicitor you're going no-where. Kids being put on them. Yep pain in the arse... BUT BIG PICTURE... It doesn't matter.
So lets assume you get the kids off the thing. You go to the school and pick them up. Technically, nothing illegal etc. But a dumb move without mum's consent. But even if there wasn't an avo, dad is still in the same situation. Can't see the kids without the ex agreeing or court orders. My thinking is AVO's do cause undue stress at times and I'm sure they get used as a foot up in family law.... But unless there is an established history of on-going abuse the AVO ain't gonna mean all that much to the end result when it hits family law

Agree but they are being used to deny access after federal proceedings leaving 'poor old dad' with yet more time away from their kids and having to launch more proceedings in the federal courts which costs $$$'s and takes months. And worse case scenario for mum is a slap on the wrist.

 

[miguel]

This may be something police do now. But the magistrate still has to be satisfied family violence on the child has occurred. Admittedly the definition of family violence is very wide these days and can include watching an argument between parents.

That's the problem. Yesterday I observed 5 mothers getting interim orders with little examination. There was no need to substantiate claims, words will do. The consistency of the words used was interesting, the bingo word is controlling. And the kids lose there Dad, just like that. It's a f***ing joke. During time with my daughters last school holidays my eldest said I'm perfect, I'm her hero, I love being here, I hate mum for what she's done. She's 8.

 

[GlassHalfFull]

Yeah, the irony is that by taking out a spurious intervention order, that person is doing the controlling, even while they are accusing the other of being controlling. I mean, in a situation where kids are involved and withheld for strategic reasons, it's no wonder that people are doing what they can to try to control the situation.

I obviously think there is a need for IVOs in society, because clearly there are instances where the family violence is unacceptable and needs to be stopped immediately, but they really need to look at the severity and the background behind it and whether it's really one-sided or whether the reality is that both parties are equally to blame (I suspect this is the case in many situations).

Because if both parties have equal involvement in an argument in front of the kids for example (which I think most people would agree is at the low end of the family violence scale), why should the one who accuses the other get all the power and the poor guy who doesn't go to the courts or police suffer 100% of the consequences of it? To treat all 'family violence' incidents as equal in severity really is not fair.

 

[Rod]

I tend to agree with the above posts. It may well be the other parent needs to respond with an application as well to try and even the playing field.

I would be recommending the counter IVO's now as a result of these latest changes so it is not simply a matter of defending an IVO. Will be interesting to see how lawyers respond to the new changes in Vic.

 

[GlassHalfFull]

You can get a counter IVO now? I was led to believe that any attempt to do so would be very much frowned upon by the magistrate and the burden of proof would be very high, given that if your children were taken away from you on the assumption of potential violence towards the children, you would have to demonstrate not only that your partner was violent, but also that your partner's danger to your children is more severe than the danger she accused you of...

Not an easy thing to do when, at least in the initial application, mere accusations are all that is needed so whoever gets in first essentially creates the hurdle that you would have to jump over in order to even start to argue your own case. And on top of that, if both parties are accusing the other of being a danger to the children, doesn't that risk involving Child Protection taking the kids away from both of you??

 

[sammy01]

Mate the problem with that is what it does to your case long term. She gets an avo on you... You get an avo out on her... Go to family court and watch her solicitor make the case that there is high conflict and the kids need to be protected from that and the only viable solution is keeping the kids away from one parent. You can guess who.
In family court you wanna show that you can co-parent in the best interest of the kids, even if the ex can't. Applying for an avo against her isn't good long term strategy... In fact I think AVO as a strategy is flawed regardless. Unless of course there is dv...

 

[GlassHalfFull]

Yeah, I agree with you. As much as I would love to see my ex suffer through the consequences of an IVO like I have had to, I agree that it isn't going to serve my long term prospects particularly well. As much resentment as I have towards my ex, I genuinely do want to have a cordial relationship with her that allows us to co-parent properly.

I want to know what is going on with my children while they're at my ex's house. I want her to know what's going on with them while they're with me. It's just plain sad that these IVOs (and ultimately the attitude of my ex) prevents it from happening. Ah well, such is life.