QLD Where to proceed next? - Evidence suggesting applicant has lied in Affadavit and Family Report.

[ProudFather]

Good Evening,

The Events.

If possible any input would be very much appreciated so I can get my head wrapped around things on where my next step should be.

Party (A) to the matter has contravened interim orders by withholding 3 children on a substantial number of occasions. The reasoning was because a psychologist had recommended to do so. Party (A) used the same reasoning which was submitted by sworn affidavit and additionally given to the Family report writer verbally when the report writer had queried the contravention material presented.

A contravention was commenced and Party (A) offered an order of two of the three children living with Party (B) full time if the contravention was retracted.

Skip forward to upcoming trial and Evidence in Chief being prepared and a subpoena of information from the psychologist from party (b) has found Party (A)'s legal representation had requested a letter from the psychologist to support Party (A)'s reasoning and affidavit. This was refuted by the psychologist in writing to Party (A)'s legal representation, with the psychologist saying that was never said to Party (A) in any capacity.

It should also be noted the Family report writer has reported that the children should be removed from Party (A) immediately because of concerns and Party (A) should commence counselling for a number of actions immediately.

Party (A) has attacked the report writer in an affidavit for purportedly not being thorough and failing to include things that party (A) believes were important.

Party (A) has made a substantial amount of statements in affidavits however with no evidence of such of Party (B) committing child abuse to the children. In the treating psychologists notes that when asked where the children were more comfortable to live, children had answered to the psychologist and the family report writer they would like to live with to live with Party (B)

Party (A) is a Grandparent. Party (B) is a biological parent.

The original application was ex parte.

The question - How should Party (B) best proceed on the above?.

 

[sammy01]

Party A - parent of party B?
Party B - Male or female (look it don't matter all that much) where is the other parent?

Party B - should follow the advice from the report writer - but should wait for a magistrate to rule... When is the final hearing?

 

[ProudFather]

Thank you for the reply!.

Party A is not the Parent of Party B.

Party B is Male.

The other parent has had issues with drub abuse and homelessness. However since the report writers recommendations, has been seeing the children more at party a's residence under party a's supervision which is some real progress.

Unfortunately it is very limited, random and the motivation is questionable, legitimate mental health is also an issue for the other parent.

Party a is seeking sole parental and full custody.

 

[ProudFather]

P.s The trial is within 3 mths.

 

[sammy01]

why did party a offer 2 of the 3 kids to live with you?
Are you legally represented? is there an ICL?
is the grandparent represented? legal aid?

Where do the kids live atm? mostly with you? how much time do they spend with grand-parent?

Ok so sole parental responsibility is kinda hard work. Good luck getting it. But in reality if you get orders that say the kids live with you and spend some time with grand parent - that is still a good result, especially since the grandparent has not been abusive? towards the kids.

 

[ProudFather]

One of the children is heavily aligned with party a. However the report writer has broached the subject of actions approaching parental alienation. Which is why party a was recommended to undertake counselling. Very broadly, As a result there is a degree of complexity. A transitional period was recommended by the report writer however refused by party a.

I am represented by a private barrister and solicitor. Party a is represented by a private solicitor. The other parent is srl.

There is documented evidence of party a coaching the children in their Phsycologist appointments and the family report interviews etc This has been identified by the report writer and the phsycologist. I am concerned that this level of manipulation is emotionally damaging, not child focused and therefore oppose any parental responsibility given to Party a. Currently party a receives every second weekend.

 

[sammy01]

Mate get back to us when this thing is finalised.... I'm thinking the grandparent will still get time with the kids, but you just might get sole parental responsibility. Or that the grandparent has it made very clear that they MUST stick to the court orders.

 

[AJBCD5]

One of the children is heavily aligned with party a. However the report writer has broached the subject of actions approaching parental alienation. Which is why party a was recommended to undertake counselling. Very broadly, As a result there is a degree of complexity. A transitional period was recommended by the report writer however refused by party a.

I am represented by a private barrister and solicitor. Party a is represented by a private solicitor. The other parent is srl.

There is documented evidence of party a coaching the children in their Phsycologist appointments and the family report interviews etc This has been identified by the report writer and the phsycologist. I am concerned that this level of manipulation is emotionally damaging, not child focused and therefore oppose any parental responsibility given to Party a. Currently party a receives every second weekend.

Hi ProudFather, can you please advise who your family report writer was. Unfortunately many out there do not have a great reputation and I know someone who is suffering from this atm and I would like to offer them support with a writer who recognises parental alienation as a real issue.